senator republican john mccain, and then white house health care czar nancy-ann deparle. plus, the politics of reform. as the president makes one final push, what does the public really want from washington? and will success or failure on health care tip the scales in the 2010 midterm race. analysis from our roundtable, three insiders, house republican whip congressman eric cantor of virginia, president and ceo of the national urban league marc morial and house chief deputy whip debbie wasserman. the "national journal's" ron brownstein and bbc world news america katty kay. first, senator john mccain, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks for having me back. >> the health care summit on tv, much anticipated. it happened many hours worth. what changed? >> i think the american people are much better informed and i

think it was a good thing because i think there was an in-depth discussion with a lot of -- about a lot of issues and i'm glad that it happened. and it gave -- i think a lot of americans watched. i'm sure not all seven hours but i think it was a good forum, i think that the american people learned something and i hope that it could be the basis for us to have some serious negotiations. but we still have the fundamental problem. do we go on the partisan plan that was rammed through the senate and the house, or do we start over from the beginning? and we obviously, the apparently the president may be intent along with the speaker and the majority leader to go the 51-vote route which i'm sure we'll get into in the conversation. >> that's called budget reconciliation where they pass with it a simple majority. how would you react if that's what will happen? >> throughout history, recent history anyway, the majority has

been frustrated by the 40-vote, the 60-vote threshold in the u.s. senate. when republicans are in the majority, they are frustrated by the democrats and vice versa. i did object strongly when during the bush administration when we couldn't get judges confirmed, that there was the advocacy of the quote nuclear option. i objected to that because i believed as robert bird does that we should not be addressing these issues through 51 votes. >> senator, you have voted for bills through reconciliation, nine times since 1989. >> yes, i have voted for them. but i objected strenuously to us changing the rules of the senate so that 51 votes would prevail. let me also say that robert byrd also in the 70s exempted social security, social security cannot be considered in reconciliation. we should do the same thing with medicare. lindsey graham and i'll be introducing legislation

entitlements should not be part of a reconciliation process i.e. 51 votes. it's too important. 1/6 of our gross national product. >> you were critical of this bill, some of the deals made. you talked about that during your speech during this summit. you have this note able exchange we played a portion of during the open. let me show it to you. >> let me just make this point. john, because we're not campaigning any more. election's over. >> i'm reminded of that every day. >> what was your reaction to that moment? >> well, look. the president said that the campaign is over. what i was saying to the president is that the mistake that has been made is assuming with 60 votes in the senate and overwhelming majority in the house you can move legislation through which has to be bipartisan in nature. it has to be. every major reform has had bipartisan support.

and so, what they ended up with is in order to buy votes, they did these unsavory deals. they are unsavory. to say that 800,000 people in florida will be carved out from any reduction in a medicare advantage program, 330,000 of my citizens in arizona are medicare advantage enrollees, to say that you're going to put $100 million in for a hospital in connecticut? look, these are unsavory deals. they were done behind closed doors, and it has been -- i'd have town hall meetings all over the place in my state of arizona. people object to the process as much as they do to the problems and policy cannot be made through an unsaferry vote-buying process. >> the president has said that there were negotiations with republicans, for months, ground was loss on the finance committee with republicans that didn't come to pass.

you say this is not a bipartisan bill, yet ron brownstein will be on the program makes clear 18 column on friday, this has all of the similarities of the dole proposal in 1993 to romney's proposal for health care reform in massachusetts. how is this a partisan bill? >> i have been part of bipartisan negotiations for many years. i have a record of bipartisan results. this was not bipartisan. the way you have bipartisan negotiations you sit down across the table as we did with ted kennedy, as i've done with many other members, and you say okay, here's what i want, here's what you want. wile adhere to yours but we'll make concessions. this bill was written by democrats for democrats and then they tried -- and i understand power -- what they try to do is peel off a couple of republicans as they did with the stimulus bill and call it bipartisan. it's not bipartisan. i know bipartisanship. and with all due respect to any

other observer, let's start over then. it's not too late. why don't we sit down together and say okay, let's start with medical malpractice reform. we agree, i think, fundamentally on that. why don't we address going across state lines? why don't we go across many of the positive proposals that we republicans have had, too, and maybe we can find common ground. >> final point on health care. the politics of this, much discussed in this edex year whether success or failures hurts or helps republican for the midterm race. in 1994 when president clinton tried this, and you've been here before talking about this, in 1994, tim russert asked you about the political implications. i want to play that for you. >> politically is it better for the republicans in the congressional elections to have health care reform bill or not have that bill? >> if the republican cans convince the american people they are doing it to prevent something like the catastrophic health insurance bill of the

late '80s yes, if we are viewed as the democrats will attempt to portray us as obstructing people from getting health care which they need we do so at great risk. >> same question now. >> certainly better looking in those days. >> same question now. better for republicans to have a bill or no bill? >> i don't know. but i know what's happened with the american public opinion and that is also seems to be missing in the calculations of the president and the democrats. overwhelmingly the american people depending on which poll you look at but overwhelmingly the american people saying stop and start over. we realize you can't do nothing. that's just a straw man. we know that medicare's going broke in seven years. but we need to start over. that's what the american people want us to do. and again, i get back, they don't like these cynical deals. they are cynical about us. they don't trust us. when you have these deals, these unsavory deals, to the pharmaceutical companies, david, how can we say to the

pharmaceutical companies we'll let you have a break, such as not competing for medicare enrollees, such as banning the import, reimportation of drugs from canada in return for which you'll run $100 million or such out thing the administration's health care reform bill. that's not right. american sees through it. >> more on the politics of 2010. you are in a primary battle for re-election against former republican congressman j.d. hayworth of arizona. and on the issue of health care, this is what he says on his website. on the issue, nowhere is the obama administration so socialist agenda more evident than their attempt to grab 17% of our nation's economy. socialist agenda. you think that goes too far? >> look, you'll have to have mr. hayworth on to explain the things he says. >> you think that goes too far? the socialist agenda from the president? >> there is no doubt in my mind

america's a right of center nation and this administration is governing from the left. that's why the president's approval ratings continue to decline. i know you want to get off health care and i will but i want to say again, an eric cantor who is coming on later will affirm this. we want to sit down and have negotiations and we have a positive agenda and we would love to see that agenda. >> to my question was do you think that kind -- you heard that description before, not just from hayworth. does it go too far to say the president's agenda is a socialist agenda? >> i think i gave my description. i think governing from the left on a broad variety of issues. i'll let others speak for themselves. i have enough time taking care of my own misstatements. >> let's talk about -- you've been criticized by some who say because you're in a primary battle that you changed a little bit, that you've taken more conservative positions and they go through some. let me bring up a couple. one with the issue of don't ask don't tell, prohibition against gays to serve in the military.

in 2006 on msnbc this is what you said t. day that the leadership comes to me and says we ought to change the policy then i think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to. chairman of the joint chiefs testified earlier this month, this is what he said. >> mits personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. >> the head of centcom said this. >> do you think soldiers on the ground in the field care one way or the other if their comrade in arms are gay or lesbian? >> i'm not sure that they do. >> why doesn't that meet your standard of 2006 for you to say okay, it's time to change views? >> because as i said back then, that we need to have a careful examination and admiral mullen was as quote speaking

personally, just this week commander of the marine corps said he did not want don't ask don't tell repealed. there are many in the military who do not want to. we're going to go through hopefully a year-long study that will hopefully also have the feelings of the men and women who are serving. but david, what also the chief of staff of the air force and of the army pointed out, we're in two wars. we have the highest trained, most professional, best military in history. the highest retention, highest recruitment in history. and they are all saying wait a minute, before we change this, let's make sure we go through a careful examination. ranging from what you heard admiral mullen say his, quote, personal opinion, to what the commander of the marine corps says he doesn't want to change. it's clear that we need to be very careful as to how we move forward on whether we change this policy. >> if the result is -- >> i believe it's worked. >> the result of that study is one i can trust and believe in and is supported by our military

leaders, obviously i would have to give that the most serious consideration. >> one question about the bailout, the t.a.r.p. you voted for it but you said you were misled by former treasury secretary paulson. >> we were all misled. he said that they were going after the toxic assets with the housing market. he testified that. we were all misled so. what did he do then? they started pumping money into the financial institutions. now the financial institutions are fine. wall street's doing great. main street is in deep trouble. in my home state of arizona, 48% of the homes are under water. in other words, they are worth less than the mortgage payments people are making. >> 25% unemployment you would have had. >> he said that they would be going after the toxic assets which were the housing market. and that's what his testimony was, that's what he pledged to do. and to the american people and

the congress, and they turned around and -- it's a matter of record. it's reported in all of the media. they switched from trying to address the housing to bailing out the financial institutions on wall street. whoever thought that we would when we passed that we would own general motors and chrysler, gmac. it's beyond what any one anticipated. >> on foreign policy and i'll complete iraq and afghanistan in one question. here is the cover of "newsweek" magazine this week. victory at last, the emergence of a democratic iraq. and as you follow the offensive that's taking place in southern afghanistan to make strides toward shoring up the government in afghanistan, do you think success along the lines of iraq, if you believe it's a success, is possible in afghanistan? >> of course. in fact, the afghans do not want the taliban back. when the surge started in iraq, things were in total chaos. i think we have significant advantages in afghanistan.

but look, iraq is not over. i appreciate that cover but it's two steps forward and one step back. these elections coming up are pornlts. afghanistan it's two steps forward and one step back. it's a long hard process. >> can it be achieved in the 18-month time frame? >> the thing that worries me the most is the president's statement about leaving in the middle of 2011. i would appreciate it if the president told these, all the way down to afghan tribal leaders who questioned me about it, to say we're going to do what's necessary to succeed, period. i would love to see that. that's a great concern. they have to stay in the neighborhood and if we leave, they have to adjust. but i am -- i have great confidence in our leadership and the men and women serving. i have never been more proud. >> we'll leave it there. >> thank you for having me on. >> up next, the president's blueprint for health care reform. what will we see, and a final bill and how does the plan get there? we'll speak with his health care czar, plus our round table

weighs in on the politics of reform and the 2010 landscape. only here on "meet the press." it's not fun. my dry skin is deep down uncomfortable. [ female announcer ] new neutrogena moisture wrap body lotion wraps and seals hydration deep inside, improving skin's condition 2x more than eucerin original. heal on a deeper level. [ female announcer ] new moisture wrap body lotion.

sir? finding everything okay? i work for a different insurance company. my auto policy's just getting a little too expensive. with progressive, you get the "name your price" option, so we build a policy to fit your budget. wow! the price gun. ♪ ah! wish we had this. we'd just tell people what to pay. yeah, we're the only ones that do. i love your insurance! bill? tom? hey! it's an office party! the freedom to name your price. only from progressive. call or click today.

the view from the white (announcer) metamucil with psyllium fiber supports your health in 4 ways it helps your natural cleansing process

helps lower cholesterol. promotes overall well being and provides a good source of natural fiber try metamucil, in powders, capsules and fiber singles.

we're back joined by health care czar nancy-ann deparle. this week "the new york times"

described it as a hail mary pass a last-ditch effort for the opportunity keep his top legislative priority from slipping out of his grasp. as you sit here do you have the votes to get this passed in congress? >> what the president wanted to do is bring everybody together again as he has before during this process to have an open honest discussion about what's at stake here for the american people. people losing coverage, with premiums sky rocketing. how do we deal with this. i think we achieved that. >> do you have the votes? >> what he wants to do is fight for american families and businesses by doing something about this problem. to reduce their costs, to make it more accessible, to give them the kind of options and choices and protections that members of congress have. >> but my question is do you have the votes? >> i believe that we will have the votes to pass this in congress. i believe that the president will keep fighting and that the american people want to have this kind of health reform. >> you don't have the votes yet? >> look, the president will have

more to say about that later this week and he's working with the congress on how best to address that. >> has he made a decision, especially give at any results of the summit that you've got to move forward with reconciliation, just go for a simple majority and you know, losing the opportunity to try to bring republicans along? >> look, he's going to have more to say later this week how he thinks is the best way to move forwa forward. i think what's important to remember is we have fundamental problems with our insurance markets. we have insurance companies sending out premium increases of 39% out in california. these are problems that need to be fixed and the president hears every day from americans hurting. >> fixing those problems you have to get through procedure to get there. i'm told by several that the decision has been made it's reconciliation, go for the simple majority or else the reforms you're talking about won't be possible. >> i don't know about that but i know this. the health care reform has passed both the house and the senate with not only a majority in the senate but a super majority. we're not talking about changing rules here. all the president is talking about is do we need to address

this problem and does it make sense to have a simple up or down vote on whether to fix these problems. >> a lot of talk at the summit where public opinion is. here is one poll about how congress should proceed. similar bill, new bill or stop working on the bill. nearly three quarters of the public saying either start over or stop working. i wonder if you respond to senator mccain that says the unsavory deals in his words, that were made by the administration with farm suitic it companies, hurt the president's efforts >> i'm not sure what he's talking about the deals with insurance companies, if you watched your networks, i think we know that right now insurance companies are making the rules and that's part what if the president is trying to change. >> they did agree to more regulation and allow people with prior conditions because they can get access to a wider market of people insured. >> i don't know that they agreed

to anything. >> there wasn't a deal with the pharmaceutical companies, the senator from nebraska and louisiana and florida with regard to medicaid. >> let's talk about that. the medicaid provisions in the president's proposal that he put out last week are not the same ones and in fact, all states are treated the same with respect to medicaid. but the more important question is are we going to move forward or start over. what is that code for. is that just code for let's not do anything? i don't think that's what the american people want. that's not the people -- that i'm hearing from. >> the president has said that americans don't want to wait. but you see the poll that i just showed and i'm asking, where is the evidence that americans don't want to wait, that they really want to move forward? the only protests you've seen are on the right and opposition to the bill. is it a problem of apathy of those who support it or is it not there? >> i think it's a problem partly of who has the power in this equation. i think that's part of what the president is fighting for is that right now the people that he hears from every day i get notes from him about people he's

hearing from when he's out talking to them and the letters he gets who can't get insurance coverage because their child has a pre-existing condition. they have asthma, they can't change jobs, their premiums are sky rocketing. i leave the polls to others. the problem he asked me to work on is trying to get the best most effective way we can to help americans dealing with these problems. the small business people who can't afford coverage. >> you can't separate the lack of public support for an effort as you move forward on the policy. can this be passed through congress without support from the american people? >> i think there is support. i think when you talk to the american people about whether it's fair for them to get knocked off their coverage when they get sick, i think they agree that no, we need some common sense rules to help regulate that market. i think they agree. >> one of the selling points is this would reduce costs over time and it would be paid for, lower the deficit. david brooks, before i get to that, but the issue of a tax on those gold plated plans, a key

way that you pay for this and balance the costs down the line. well, that has been changed in the president as plan to take effect later. this is what david brooks writes on friday. the democrats and republicans of the summit neglected to mention the fact they gutted the long term revenue source for their package, the excise tax. that tax is diluted and postponed until 2018. there is no way members of the congress eight years from now are going to asaid to a $1 trillion tax increase to pay for a measure that the 2010 congress wasn't brave enough to pay for itself. >> by the way, that tax, that fee on high cost insurance plans was designed to bring down pressure in the long term and it does that. and that's why the economists across the spectrum who looked at it say that's something they wants in this bill and glad that it's remained. >> it's pushed back. >> it is one of the republican ideas. >> 2018. >> it is but it was improved to make sure it does -- >> the question, you think congress down the road is going to pay for a tax increase that

this congress wasn't brave enough to pass now? >> yes, i do because this president has -- is paying for reform unlike similar measures in the past, first of all, secondly it's something that over ten years is going to reduce the deficit. they are not going to want to walk away from that. >> final point. will incremental reform be considered reform by this president? >> this president is fighting to get the most effective package possible to help the american people to lower their costs, to get everyone covered. and unfortunately these are big problems. the fundamental problem that he's left with here. and we have to deal with it. you can't walk away. i think everyone agreed at the meeting on thursday that we can't just do nothing. what does that mean? that means we have to address these problems and the baby steps that they talked about, some of which are worthy ideas, many of which you spent hours talking to them about last year and we incorporated in the bill, they don't solve the problem. i think that's the issue. so whether we can solve those problems is the challenge and

issue. >> we'll leave it there. thank you very much. coming up next, the 2010 elections, the impact of the health care debate and a growing sense of voter anger and mistrust of washington. insights and analysis from our roundtable, congressman eric kanltder, the national urban league's marc morial and ♪ [ woman ] nine iron, it's almost tee-time. time to face the pollen that used to make me sneeze, my eyes water. but with new zyrtec® liquid gels, i get allergy relief at liquid speed. that's the fast, powerful relief of zyrtec®, now in a liquid gel. zyrtec® is the fastest 24-hour allergy medicine. it works on my worst symptoms so i'm ready by the time we get to the first hole. and that's good because the competition's steep today. new zyrtec® liquid gels work fast, so i can love the air.™

and we are back.

joiping us, the national urban league's mark morial, the house republican whip and house democratic chief deputy whip, congresswoman debbie wasserman-shultz. ron brownstein of the national journal and ka tty kay. welcome, everybody. congressman, let me start with you. where are we after this summit? after all the machinetions and negotiations, are there the votes in the house to get this done? i'm sure my colleague will have are something to say. there's a reason we're here with no health bill having been passed. that's because the american people have decided this is not the health care bill for them. that's why you heard during the seven-hour discussion we had at the blair house with the president, republicans come to the table and say, look, we do care about health care and we want to do something to effect

positive reform. it's just that we want to take a much more common sense, modest, incremental approach, trying to address the first issue first, which is cost, and then go on to try to deal with some of the things that the president and speaker pelosi want to do. >> we'll come back to that. in terms of what the general approach is. but congresswoman schulz, there are the votes in the house, which is really the big testing ground here, if it's reconciliation, for instance, where you go for a simple majority? >> when we start counting, the votes will be there. the american people want to make sure that we take the abusive practices that the insurance companies engage in and make sure we put doctors and patients back in the driver's seat. right now it's insurance companies that decide what kind of coverage you have, insurance companies can drop you based on a preexisting condition. i know that from personal experience. right now you can get dropped when you become sick. we've got to make sure we put doctors and patients, not insurance companies, back in the driver's seat. if you look at the polling, if we're talking about polling,

that the american people have weighed in on, they support the components that are included in this bill because they want to make sure that we end an abusive practice by insurance companies. >> but mark, the composite of all of those, the difficulty the president faces, is that he has not sold the public on his version of health care reform. that's the reality of his situation right now. i spoke to one very close ally of the president's on this fight saying he thinks 40% chance this ultimately gets done. where are we? >> i think that there's a strong chance that it's going to happen because it needs to happen because, beyond the politics of washington and the infighting, the fact of the matter is there's a problem in this nation, and that is there are many people uncovered and for those who do have coverage costs are exploding. so i think that the president rightfully went back and had a discussion, which was a health care summit. some may have said it didn't make good tv, but what it did is it showed that the discussions are substantive, that the

issues, in fact, are serious, and i think at the end something should get done and something will get done because it needs to get done. >> it's interesting, ron brownstein and our congressmen and women will talk about the fill sop sof cal differences. one thing that came through the summit is that there are very big philosophical and ideological gigss about the role of government and how many people should be covered, particularly given the finances during a recession. >> absolutely. i mean, i think one of the real points that came out of the summit was the depth of the disagreement between the parties. in fact, each party's health care plan i think largely crystalizes their view of the role of government and they differ not only in their solutions to the problem but their definition of the problem. we're not really, to use the president's term, comparing apples to a. s apples, the demo plan tries to cover by estimate 33 million people uninsured over the next decade, the republican plan aims to cover 3 million people. it is a much more minimalistic

plan, basically recyclinged ideas, the interstate sale of insurance, medical malpractice that republicans were pushed and unable to bring into law when they held unified control of the house and senate and white house in the middle part of this decade. they were unable to bring public consensus for those ideas when they had unified control to get them into lawment i think the reality is health care is a very difficult issue. it has defeated every president who's tried for 70 years, a very complex problem. what you're seeing in the end are fundamentally different divisions in the parties about how to attack this and what really you are attacking in the end. >> what about the president's leadership on this, katty? >> i don't think the summit changed anything in terms of the passage or not passage of the bill. i want one area where i think the president hasn't managed to try to get those poll numbers to shift in favor of reform is to say to americans, listen, you may have a level of care at the moment that you're happy with, but if we carry on with these exploding costs, care will deteriorate. at the moment, america has

globally the 37th highest quality of care in the world, just above cuba, just below costa rica. that number will decline. is that where america sees itself? if something isn't done, it will decline. that's an argument the president hasn't managed to get across. i think the other thing he hasn't really done is appeal to a sense of generosity in the american people. i travel around the country and have seen the poll numbers but i'm struck by how many americans say to me, we don't see ourselves as a country that doesn't allow people access to a doctor if they don't have insurance. that's just not how america sees itself. this is the country that gives the highest level of charitable donations in the world. americans think of themselfeds as a different country. >> all of you can weigh in. the tension seems to be individual elements are popular. people want different health care, access to health care, reform. but there's a lot of distrust that government can deliver this tiend of care and handle it

well. isn't that the fundamental tension? >> the fundamental delivery system here will be the private insurance system. that's what's key. this is not the government running insurance. it is changes to how health care is delivered, but what it would do would be to provide opportunities for more americans to purchase private insurance. and i think there's been a great deal of confusion. this is, in essence, a partnership between the government and the private sector to expand health coverage. and i think it's been confused by talking points. it's been confused by political broadsides. but that's essentially what it is. >> david, the reality is -- and take a little different approach here and difference with that statement -- republicans do care about health care. we want to address the first and most foundational element, which is cost. because if we can bring down cost, more people can access care. but we also know that there is something we need to do to get

more people insured. the problem is, with the president's bill, it's about expanding medicaid. no one wants to go on to medicaid. that's why physicians in florida and other states are leaving medicaid in droves because of the imperfect rear medicaid in droves because of the imperfect reeimbursement structure. that's what the bill is about, expanding the government programs that don't work. we need reform to bring down cost. >> you want to talk about bringing down koflt, our bill makes sure we address the problem of every family in america having a $1,000 hidden tax for covering the uninsured. this 47 million people who don't have insurance. we are all paying for them because they show up at the emergency room as their primary access point for health care. in order to reduce costs, we can cut a tax of $1,000 on american families just by covering those people. we can also make sure that we bring down costs by broadening the pool, adding the healthiest people who are choosing right now to not carry health insurance and then when they get hit out of the clear blue sky but an unexpected illness, they

don't have insurance and we're paying for it. >> let's reality check this. the claim by congressman kantor that there isn't cost reduction here, we're not lowering cost, is that accurate? look what the cbo says. >> there's two ways to look at it. the cbo says the republicans' plan will reduce the deficit the broader question of when what it means to overall spending has been analyzed. they concluded that between now and 2019, if you did the democratic plan, you would insure 33 million more people and total national health spending would increase by less than a penny on the dollar. so does it break the back of rising costs? no. but does it reallocate resources within the medical system more efficiently potentially than they are now? clearly the actuary is suggesting yes if you can cover 33 million people on less than a penny on the dollar. that is part of the debate that is not complete. can i go back to your point, you're absolutely right.

even though individual elements of this plan do poll well, overall democrats have not been able to get in a position where most americans, particularly most white americans because there's a difference between minority and whites in the poling, believe it will help them and their family. i think that's why this is a gut-check moment for the democratic minorities. if you poll them privately, clearly both chambers believe they have produced a plan that approaches universal coverage if that is your goal. the question is, do they believe they can sell it to the american people if they go forward with it? because as you say, right now they haven't. and republicans i think exuded confidence at that summit that they believe they are winning the argument. >> congressman, what happens between now and when you say you have the votes? what is the president going to say this week? how does he justify reconciliation in a way that other than yourself who can presumably cast a vote for this safely in her district, how do other members say, this is a good thing? >> because the american people support pieces of the plan. after thursday they see that the

republican mantra that we need to start over. start over means do nothing. make no mistake, it's disingenuous for my colleague to suggest they really want to cover people when the only thing they have out there covers 3 million people. nothing in their plan brings down cost. we have the largest tax cut for small businesses an those who pay for health care in our bill in american history. that's our bottom line. we have cost reduction, comprehensive coverage. we cover 31 million people. and they don't even come close. >> congressman, let me revise that by asking this. what specifically -- you have the bill piled up in front of you -- can you say yes to that's in the president's revised proposal? anything? >> we can -- listen, dave. let's take a step back for a second because this notion that somehow republicans never came forward with solutions i think the american people are over that now. >> hold it. what you said specifically is there is a big difference in scope. 30 million covered versus 3 million. difference in the role of government. we established that. >> what we say is this. our approach is an incremental

approach. it is not do nothing. i think that's a tired argument. >> do very little. >> it's an incremental approach. let's talk about the first thing, bringing down health care costs. that's how this whole debate began over a year ago at the white house when the president had his first summit. >> where's the evidence that you do that? >> we certainly -- cbo has validated that we bring down health care insurance premiums without a doubt. that help folks who have it. we can expand coverage. we say we don't approve of denial will of coverage for preexisting conditions. we have -- >> it's not in your bill tv absolutely it's in our bill. >> it isn't. >> we have a plan that creates universal access programs at the state level which allows folks to access insurance if they're denied by their insurer. >> david, let me just -- >> wait. quickly respond to anything there that you -- >> in fact, cbo has estimated that both plans, if you're look being at existing insurance plan, would bring down premiums by about the same amount for the apples to apples, c aon the eff

on the same plan. now, the reason why the cost goes up -- this is a question i think democrats are going to have to answer as they go forward on this -- is that they are mandating a richer plan than in some cases people more comprehensive plan than people now have as the baseline in these exchanges. so one of the questions i think democrats may be asking is, can they bring down the cost of this somewhat by moving back away from some of those mandates. if you look at the cbo analysis of both core proposals, their impact on premiums, it's very similar. >> hold on. let me get katty in here on this question of what are republicans saying yes to, which goes to the overall question, the politics for republicans here. what's it worth to them to have any sort of reform? >> it seems to me the politics of the republicans is to carry on saying no. i don't see where the value is to signing up pretty much to anything politically. they do believe they have public opinion on their side on this and they will be able in

november, if health care doesn't pass to turn to the public and say, look, the white house is expending a lot of energy in trying to get the president's signature bill through when what he should have been concentrating on is jobs, jobs, jobs, the economy. you can see the republican ads being written if this bill isn't passed. >> here's what the people deserve. they deserve an up or down vote and not a lot of procedural delay tactics, the use of all sorts of measures. we deserve, the people deserve, an up or down vote on health care. let everyone put their proposals and the table. let the house of representatives and senate vote it up or down. >> the risk with that -- >> let me just weigh in right now because i'll tell you one thing, if speaker pelosi rams through this bill through the house using the reconciliation process, they will lose -- >> hold on. >> they will lose their majority in congress in november. >> hold on. let me just follow the issue of reconciliation. congressman, reconciliation has

been used many times before by the republicans. >> absolutely. listen, there are differences in every instance when reconciliation was used. this is something health care that is going to alter a significant portion of our economy. >> can i just -- >> and if they do this, the public does not like this bill. so it's that somehow the democratic majority just won't listen to the public. >> can i just -- >> david, let me -- i need to respond to what he's saying here. >> quick comment. >> the republicans have repeatedly said that they agree with 80 pr of what% of what's i. at the even of the day we need to sit down and negotiate on the differences in the 20 brs. the republicans right now are focused all about regaining power. they don't have any interest in accomplishing comprehensive health care reform. that's evident. there isn't anyone saying, let's just work this out. they're saying start over. start over the american people understands do nothing.

>> how can you say that? >> final point. congressman, i want this very narrow point. what would be in a revised bill that you could vote for? what out of all of the president's ideas could you support? now? >> well, we could start with implementing real medical malpractice reform. we could start by creating universal access programs at the state level to allow those being denied coverage by the insurance company now the ability to access insurance. we could put in place the ability, real ability, for people to purchase insurance across state lines. for real competition, it would -- >> for instance, those three elements you could vote for? >> if you listen to my discussion and my comments with the president at the blair house, when he asked that being i said, look, it is the construct of the bill. it goes back to the level of mandate from washington. and the president and i had an exchange about, why is it that we need the secretary of health and human services here in washington telling people what benefits -- >> hold it. i want to move beyond some of the fine points of this to go a

little bit larger in terms of politics. charlie cook talked about what all this means politically this year. this is what he said in a report as politico reported it this week. i think choosing to take a captain ahab-like approach to health care i'm going to push this for even in the worst downturn since the great depression is roughly comparable to bush going to war. does the president come through this, however it turns out? tarnished in some way? is he hurt going into the midterm race? >> i think the debate about reckonciliation is a bit of a rd herring. if this passes and proves to be popular, it will be judged on its merits f. it passes and proves to be unpopular, it would also be judged on those merits. people will soon forget how it was passed. that's how it happened with welfare reform. it was passed through reconciliation. people don't remember the big bickering beforehand.

the problem i think for the president is that this is gumming up all of the time he needs to be spending on other things. business leaders are going to the white house saying, we cannot make decisions about trying to hire people because we don't know what our costs are going to be, our health care costs, what the energy plan will be, the tax reform will be. so they're not making decisions. they are frozen because washington is frozen. he needs to get moving on these legislative issues. >> mark, the debate of course is how close does the president get to legislation like this? there's a reason why, with all respect, members of congress suffer in their popularity because law making is not a popular thing in the public. does he risk of tarnish of being too close to the process now that he's decided to get close? >> i think he takes credit for being able to get something big and significant done. poll numbers change. public opinion changes. what people are reaktdi iacting messing, confusing process. i think a victory on health care will help the president.

he staked his first year in the presidency on it. people can debate whether he should have done something else. the fact of the matter is, he's on the goal line. i think people want to see him get the ball in the end zone and pass the plan. >> i agree with both of them. i think this really is a gut check moment for the democrats. they have not won the debate at this point. it's not unusual. every other president trying to do this found it is difficult to convince the country that government can reform a system this complex, especially at a time with such distrust of the government after the 2008 financial meltdown. i don't think people will remember how this was done. if they go ahead, they would have to do so in the belief they can turn around the poll numbers and convince the country this is worth doing. ultimately, this has been a top priority for every democratic president since truman. they are, as mr. morial says, on the goal line. if they don't do it, i think it would be a striking admission that they do not believe in the end they can win this argument at the core of the party's

mission for many decades. >> let me move on. another question i want to ask you regarding congressman wrangle of new york who was criticized by the ethics committee for a series of trips that he took down to the caribbean. should he retain his job? >> well, i think we -- obviously when a member is found to have violated house ethics rules it's a very serious thing, and there are a number of other investigations ongoing. i think what speaker pelosi has said we need to look at the totality of those recommendations and wait until all the investigations are completed before a decision arendered on that. >> but you're concerned about the finding? >> obviously any time a member is found to have broken rules it's concerning. >> nancy pelosi said in the very beginning this is going to be the most open, honest, most ethical congress in history. she's breaking that promise every day, we're seeing. i'm sure my colleague would join me in saying that the american people would say, right away, charlie wrangle should step

aside from being chairman of the most major committee in congress after having been found to be in violation of house rules. as we know in press reports, this is only the tip of the iceberg. so, listen, i called for his stepping down before even this finding, and now i do think it's time. >> ron, does he make it? >> this is the first shoe. this is not enough by itself, but i think many democrats are expecting that the further revelations on the ongoing investigation on his financial dealings may create irresistible pressure for him to step down. >> i strongly support charlie wrangle and his future is up to the voters who elected him. he's had a long, great career in congress. i think there's always going to be a lot of back and forth about ethics investigations. not to sanction what he said, but his future should be up to the voters of his district. >> katty, another interesting point, political situation, in new york. governor paterson saying he will not pursue his campaign for governor, striking because here you have the obama

administration who tried to get him to back out of this race months ago. now the scandal involving his administration and any potential will interference with the domestic violence situation involving one of his aides has come to the where he's still on the job and calling for his to resign outright. >> front page paper calls for his resignation. i think it's a suggestion that the white house's bid earlier to try to get him to resign is an indication of the limitations of the white house's clout when it comes to democrats all around the country. i mean, they've had this problem in elections across the country as well in trying to support democrats who didn't then get elected. it is something that makes the white house not look particularly powerful. >> you know, it's a measure of the kind of year it is for democrats. sometimes it's the best headline when someone steps aside. a tough year is the best -- >> the white house asked them to step aside and then they stepped

aside. >> the bottom line when it comes to ethics reform is we got the -- democrats got the ethics committee moving again. it's an effective process that was totally neutered under the republicans. now we have an ethics committee that is fully functioning and making sure that we take care of the ethics problems when they're there. >> we are going to leave it there. thanks to all of you. we will talk more with mark morial about the national urban league's century of service to american's community. [ male announcer ] mix it.

blend it. sprinkle it. sweet! [ male announcer ] grilled. filled. chilled. sweet! [ female announcer ] just about anywhere you use sugar you can use splenda® no calorie sweetener. more ways than you ever imagined. [ male announcer ] flakes. shakes. cakes. sweet! [ female announcer ] splenda® starts with sugar. tastes like sugar. but it's not sugar. it's... [ male announcer ] savory. crunchy. yummy. sweet! [ female announcer ] splenda®. america's favorite no calorie sweetener.

i'm lawrence taylor. i lost 35 pounds on nutrisystem. give nutrisystem for men a try. losing weight has never been easier. that's me 22 pounds ago, and i'm never going back there again. don't miss our best tv offer: order now and you can get an extra four weeks of meals free. that's right, 140 meals absolutely free! hey, get back in the game like i did. i did...go...all...the...way, whoop!

i lost 50 pounds with nutrisystem for men. get off your butt and try it. nutrisystem worked for me, and it can work for you, too. don't miss our best tv offer: order now and you can get an extra four weeks of awesome meals! 28 breakfasts, lunches, dinners, desserts, and snacks. 140 meals absolutely free. call or click now. don't make me come looking for you. before we go a programming note on this final day of the olympics in vancouver, watch the gold medal hockey game right here on nbc. team usa versus canada in the improbable match-up. i can say since the russians were knocked out i never have the uncomfortable loyalty with were knocked out i never have the uncomfortable loyalty with my son so it's ryan

-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com