>> schieffer: today on face nation, the battle over healthcare reform, plus the war in afghanistan. members of congress went home last week and came nice face with huge crowds angry about plans to overhaul healthcare. does the white house still have the muscle and the public support to pass reform? we will ask white house press secretary robert gibbs. then we will turn to afghanistan. where u.s. troops are going head to head with the taliban as that country prepares for this week's elections. we will get perspective from former senator chuck yagel and lee hamilton and finally presidential historian douglas brinkley joins us to talk about presidents and our national parks, but first, the rage over healthcare reform. on face the nation. captioning sponsored by cbs

"face the nation" with cbs news chief washington correspondent bob schieffer. and now from washington, substituting for bob schieffer, harry smith. >> welcome again to the broadcast, bob sniff is offer this morning, joining us now from phoenix, arizona where he is travel twg the president, white house press secretary robert gibbs, mr. gibbs, good morning. >> good morning, harry, how are you? >> very well. >> 80 percent of americans have health insurance, they may not be thrilled with the system as it works right now, but their fear is reform is going to make things worse instead of better. can you guarantee them that things will improve? >> absolutely. if you like what you have now you will get a chance to keep it, but in each of the town hall meetings that the president has done over the last week, harry, we have highlight add specific instance where health insurance reform would help those that already have health insurance.

yesterday it was a family that had hit the lifetime cap on their policy, and were soon going to have to start paying those expenses completely out of pocket, or of a woman in new hampshire who was discriminated against by her health insurance company because they said she had a preexisting condition which meant they didn't want to cover any of her medical expenses. those type of insurance reforms will be exactly what those that are lucky enough to have health insurance in our country, those are the reforms and the benefits that they will see as part of this debate. >> okay. so those are for folks who have insurance already. there are almost 50 million people in the united states who do not have health insurance, what makes the white house think it can create a new bureaucracy that will live up to the promise of actually being able to provide health insurance to people who don't have it? >> well, look, we will create a healthcare exchange that will allow people to find the policy that works best for them, much like the federal employees

health benefit, they will get a chance to look at what serves their family or their interests or their small business in a good way, they will get help in trying to purchase that health insurance, because right now, harry, we all pay for those that get sick and go to the emergency room, but don't have health insurance through uncompensated care it affects our insurance rates just like it affects millions of others. >> does the president have to have a government sponsored or government run insurance plan in order for him to sign off on this or is this a deal breaker? >> well, harry, what the president has always talked about is that we inject some choice and competition into the private insurance market. there are places in this country unfortunately where if you don't get insurance through your job and you are seeking it on the private insurance market you don't have any choice but one health insurance company. what the president has said in order to inject choice and competition, which will drive down costs and improve quality,

that people ought to be able to have some competitor in that market, there ought to be a choice that they have. the president has thus far decided with the motion that that can best be done through a public option. okay. thus far -- >> is that a hedge? >> no, no, no. what i am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have this choice and competition in the insurance market. again if you are a place in this country where you only get one choice, how in the world are you going to be able to convince anybody that you are driving down costs when you don't have to compete against anything? >> there is a lot of skepticism though about whether there is going to work or not and yesterday the president said well okay, live is a federal insurance program, we will just look at the post office. well, and it has competitors in the private sector. maybe that is not the best example to look at. it loses billions every year and it is about to stop delivering mail on saturdays. >> well, look, i don't think he

was saying that what we were going to do is create the postal service for healthcare, what he was doing is addressing those that are concerned that if a government entity is involved in any way that it kills anything in the private market. the president has talked about& health insurance reform will build on the way that millions and millions of americans receive their health insurance. that is through their employer sponsored system, we want to build on it and improve that, we want to cut costs for families and for small businesses. you know, harry, what i think is most important in this debate is what happens if we do nothing? that is the riskiest option of all because we know that 14,000 people each day will lose their health insurance if we continue to do the same thing. we know that freedoms will skyrocket for a family listening out there your premium will double in less than nine years if we do nothing. for a small business that is listening out there, who wants to continue to provide health insurance but understands that freedoms are skyrocketing, there will be no relief for any of those individuals or families or small businesses, and that is

why we can't poured to let this great opportunity passç"us by, and do nothing. >> at the president's healthcare forums thus far he has not had to encounter very much rancor but especially in certain congressional and senate districts, some of these folks have seen a lot of noise, a lot of passion, when you see these people's faces and you hear what they have to say, what do you think? >> well, whe when i see the peoe on tv, you mean? >> when you see these healthcare forums, not the ones the president has done but from these various congressional and senator joel districts and you see the anger what do you think? >> look i understand as the president does that people have questions and concerns about health insurance reform, i think one of the reasons the president is out there, has been out there three times in the past week is to try to address the misinformation that is out there amount health insurance reform. he also understands this isn't

going to be easy but i will tell you, harry, we went to a place last night, grand junction, colorado where the president received about 35 percent of the vote in 2008, we had a very courteous discussion, there were a couple of tough questions, but a very courteous discussion about the issues that are involved. i have got to tell you, harry, i think most of what you are seeing on tv, no offense, is good tv and that's about it. i think the vast majority of people are having discussions whether it is around their kitchen table or with their congressmen in their district or their senator, and they are doing this the way every american discusses issues and that is trying to get some information and some facts to make a good decision. >> at some of these healthcare forums you feel people like chuck grassley say if there is national health insurance policy involved in this, i a i am not g to participate, you even have some democrats who are very much on the fence about this, i am just going to try to plow this one more time.

does -- is this a deal breaker for the president? does he have to have national health insurance in order to have a healthcare reform plan done? >> well, again, the president believes that this option, the option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition. but you mentioned senator grassley who is working with democratic and republican colleagues to fashion a bill in the senate finance committee and we certainly look forward to their ideas. harry, the bottom line again is, do individuals looking for health insurance in the private market have choice and competition? if we have that, the president will be satisfied. all right. last but not least, you are seeing increasing evidence at least from economists anyway that the recession is over or may have, in fact, bottomed out. does the white house look at it that way? >> well, look, we certainly have seen some data recently that show that our economy is -- has stabilized a bit. i definitely think we have pulled back from the edge of going into a depression, which many people predicted when the

president took over in january. we still see hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs every month, millions of people looking for work, and harry, this president won't be satisfied that our economy is back on track again until the people that want to work in this economy can find a good paying job that lets them provide for their family. that is what he is focused on each and every day. >> robert gibbs we thank you very much for your time this morning. >> harry, thanks for having me. >> all right. we will be back to talk about the war in afghanistan in one minute. ñi

>> the growing violence in afghanistan is a reminder that the fighting that started there in 2001 is far from over. we go now to krbls news chief of foreign affairs correspondent lara logan is with the marines in kumar province, what is it like now on the eve of the

elections. >> well there is an atmosphere of fear hanging over this election now, afghans are ready to vote in the next few days there is their second presidenal election, but just yesterday, there was a massive car bomb outside of nato headquarters in the capital of kabul, and this for afghans is a demonstration that the taliban trying to show they can strike any time they want to, anywhere they want to, and they have threatened to disrupt the election at all costs. they won't be able to stop everybody from going to the polls, but there is concern that particularly here where i am in the south of the country, they will through fear and intimidation be able to prevent people from voting, and if they can do that in significant numbers, then that is a problem for the credibility of the election and what people were telling us here is that they were telling the marines who were out on patrol yesterday we can't go and vote because your finger is stained with indelible ink and if the taliban see that they say they will chop off our head and kill us and only a few

poll stations open in the south and in some areas they couldn't even open polling station it is so dangerous so this is one of the major problems afghans face and there is some concern about what exactly the taliban have in store over the next few days and on voting day itself, the u.s. will be securing the roads, the afghans will be securing the polling stations, and there will not be a visible u.s. presence, they want this to look like an afghan election, they want people to believe that it is an afghan election, although many afghans believe it is the u.s. that will decide the outcome and that their vote doesn't really count. harry. >> and joining us now to talk about u.s. strategy there, former senator chuck hagel joining us, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. july was the deadliest month so far for u.s. and nato forces in afghanistan. the taliban effectively control almost half of the country, as the united states continues to aggressively engage the taliban. what are your greatest concerns

mr. hamilton we will start with you. >> afghanistan is fiend dishly complex, very, very difficult policy challenge for us i think we are at a pivotal point. we are going to have to decide how hard, how big to go in or to come back a little bit. my major concern at the moment is that we put aside our assumptions and examine kind of from the beginning, are we doing the right thing there? what are our objectives? how much are we willing to pay to reach those objectives? are there alternatives other than a massive increase in troops and money into the region? can we protect the american national interests, can we protect americans with something less than they be on the horizons

here. those are the questions on my mind. general mccrystal is due to report soon back as to the transition that is taking place under his leadership, we are hearing rumors he has been told not to ask for more troops but made the wish list that is said to include as many as 10,000. anthony according to son says there should be 35,000 more. this is a very expensive proposition in terms of both blood and treasure. do we know we are making the right investment? >> well, i go back to what lee laid out in answering your question, i think think he has captured exactly right. mission to what lee has said, i would add this. what are the achievable objectives? and that tied to your question, how do we know we are making the right decisions? first, we have an election thursday, i would expect that general mccrystal's analysis will come in shortly thereafter,

my understanding is there will be a part 2 to that, then he will have recommendations following that, which will obviously address additional troops, if he is going to ask for more. but i think also we have to keep in mind that this fall we will have been in afghanistan nine years, and we have got to identify very clearly what is this objective? is it nation building? now if it is nation building, and general ambassador eikenberry as we know extent a recent memo to secretary clinton saying, i need two and a half billion more in nonmilitary, plus military. then we are getting very deep into something here that we don't do very well, we don't understand. this area of the world is at the crossroads of the most dangerous, complicated, imusable combustible region on earth, you have three nuclear powers all bordering each other and aspiring nuclear power in iran, pakistan is connected to the

future of afghanistan. regional strategic concepts have to be laid out in this, and it isn't just the military. i fear that we could find ourselves bogged down, drifting dangerously deeper and deeper into a situation where it becomes very difficult to get out, and we become isolated. you know, the dutch are coming out next year. the canadians are looking at coming out in 2011, the british. >> they are up against the wall. >> this is an election. >> right. >> so i am willing to wait to see what mccrystal says but i think gates points, secretary gates has been very important points that he has made, because one of the points he continues to make is, the more we load in american forces, are we being perceived more and more wider and wider as an occupation force? if the people turn and we can't get the people back, it won't make any difference whether we put 200,000 troops in. >> right. >> i mean that was a difficult lesson in vietnam.

>> point well-taken and the question then becomes, if, in fact, too much time has transpired for the united states to let its interests seep in there if too much time -- if the time has forfeited -- let me go back to what senator hagel said, can we afford not to be there, though,ive sex are as high as they are, can we afford not to be there? >> if you keep your focus on what i think is the core national interest, protecting americans, dismantling al qaeda, we have to achieve that objective. we do not want to threaten the security and lives of the american people. can we achieve that without what cluck is talking about? nation building. i do not personally think we can modernize afghanistan. there are historical political, cultural, economic forces that are massive in that country, and

we can't turn them around. one of the great questions of american foreign policy is always sustainability. we get excited about a place, we are willing to put billions of dollars into it in the short-term, but you cannot solve afghanistan's problems in the short-term. all of the experts are telling us decades, so the question, chuck, is, are your colleagues and mine willing to put billions and billions and billions of dollars over not a year or two or three, but decades into afghanistan? >> to protect the core interests. >> do you feel like the white house has clear object it was here? richard holbrook was in a forum this week and somebody asked him what success is and when he said well we will know it when we see it? >> i don't think that is a particularly reassuring answer, but i think that is indicative, though, to this foggy, vaporous idea that still is floating

around out there as to what is, to lee's point and he is exactly right what is exactly the achievable core interest but what protects our interests, pakistan, that area has never been governable, now that doesn't mean it can't get better but i am not so sure it is wise to get our army bogged down in a situation whereby the end of this year, right now, on the board, including nato and other countries like australia, who have troops in there we will have at least 100,000 troops in there and probably tripling the usaid and economic development going in there, you drift and drift and go deeper and wider and all possess a sudden a year or two years goes by and you are in a lot of trouble. now how do you unwind this? because there are ramifications to that for our standing in the world. >> congress malhamilton, final question, election happens this week, does it matter if karzai ends up back in office or will it likely be a are you runoff but if it happens he will be

back in office, does it matter? >> i don't know much about the alternatives to karzai. i have been disappointed in karzai's leadership, but if our goal is to create a legitimate, reasonable, accountable, capable afghan government, we are going to be there a long, long time, i believe. it does -- does it matter? i suppose it does in who wins an election. my view is that the election is kind of delayed us. to try to achieve our objectives, maybe it is a necessary delay. but we are going to have to work with that afghan government. even with limited objectives that chuck and i have talked about we are going to have to work with them. and so in a sense, we will work with whoever wins. >> as always, harry, just like iraq, it will be the people themselves of that region that will determine the fate and outcome of their country. >> very sobering stuff, senator hagel and hamilton, thank you for being here.

we will be right back. this portion of face the nation was response sword by ibm. let's build a smarter planet. visit ibm.com/smarter planet.

>> president obama and his family took in a tour of yellowstone national park yesterday. historian doug brinkley joins us now to talk about presidents and america's national parks. she the author of the new book, teddy roosevelt, wilderness warrior. doug brinkley, good morning. >> good morning to you, harry. >> why was roosevelt so determined to preserve some of america's great, last great places? >> well, as a kid he had asthma and he grew up in new york city and he found the nature secure -- >> he went to the adirondacks, later his mother and wife grew both died on valentine's day, he

took a train ride to the badlands of north dakota and wrote a trilogy of books about the window earns there and decided that scenic wonders is what distinguished united states from europe. >> true, england has westminster abbey but we had yellowstone. >> they has the louvre, we had yellowstone. >> what did you talk about on the trip to west. >> there was a group of historians he had at the white house and i got to talk a little bit about my book on tr, the wilderness warrior and i went to the interior department and got to speak with secretary salazar, who is accompanying the president on to these national parks and they are just very keene, i think the american people to know that some of their tax dollars are going to keep these great parks up and running. >> if roosevelt were alive today, what would he think of the state of the parks? >> i think he would be sadly dismayed, in fact, not just our national parks -- incidentally here, we need to -- it is a

great american triumphant success story the national park system, and the national monuments but still need places that need to be designated as parks, big sur, the alaska, we are sitting in the state parks of california, arnold schwarzenegger is about to try to close 50 to 100 of them because he says he doesn't have money, he is going to padlock the state parks of california, so i think hopefully the president's trip and ken burns upcoming documentary is going to remind people that these are our great wonders that these parks both national and state are what make america really special and great, and that children, in particular, can find all this -- these sort of wonders by just going to the stay or the mountains or our great rivers. >> interestingly enough, attend dance at national parks have been going down for several years and actually spiked back up again because of the recession this year. do you have any sense whatsoever that there is a national will to pore in the billions of dollars

that is so desperately needed to restore the infrastructure of the national parks? and i have only have about 30 seconds left. >> i think we need to have that debate, harry, clearly healthcare is going to dominate things now, but the answer is yes. for example, we have over 500 wildlife refugees, saving these great species and their habitat yet industrialization is encroaching on them all the time. i think we just have to preserve what we have, we have got to realize that it is america's best idea, the parks, monuments, wildlife refugees and think about what roosevelt called the generation's unborn, these land areas are great heirlooms to future generations. >> doug brinkley, thanks so much for your thoughts this morning, we do appreciate it. >> we will be right back.

>> that is our broadcast. bob schieffer will be back next sunday. thanks for watching face the nation. t captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org