gwen: a special program this week. your questions...our answers... all on the hot topic of this hot month...health care. tonight, on "washington week." gwen: the questions are coming fast and furious... >> why are we inviting 15 million illegal alie-invaders, who broke federal law, into our health care system? >> why do you continue to

support a nazi policy as obama has expressly supported the policy, why are you supporting it?" >> on what planet do you spend most of your time? gwen: but who do you trust to give you the answers...? the president is trying... >> we're going to have to cut through a lot of nonsense out there, a lot of absurd claims that have been made about health insurance reform. gwen: but is it too little too late? >> call your senator. stop the government takeover of health care. gwen: we asked for your questions and hundreds of you responded. tonight's answers come from the reporters who have been covering the story... ceci connolly of "the washington post"... peter baker of "the new york times"... naftali bendavid of "the wall street journal"... and jeanne cummings of politico. >> celebrating 40 years of journalistic excellence, live

from our nation's capital, this is "washington week with gwen ifill," produced in association with national journal. corporate funding for washington week is provided by -- >> we know why we're here. to redefine air travel for a new generation. >> to ensure our forces are safer and stronger. >> to take the world we share to tomorrow and beyond. >> around the globe, the people boeing are working together to make a difference. >> that's why we're here. >> it creates half the electricity that seals our dreams. we have more than any place on earth. we're working on cleaner ways to use coal every day. there is more information at

n.m.a..org. major funding is also provided by the anenburg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. thank you. once again, live from washington... moderator gwen ifill. gwen: good evening and welcome to a special "washington week" roundtable on health care reform... if it's hot where you are, it's quite possible that the elevated temperature is caused by more than summer sunshine. for president obama, the headwinds he has encountered on this signature domestic issue remind him of this time last year. he told supporters as much yesterday... >> you will recall that the republicans have just nominated their vice presidential candidate and everybody was -- the media was obsessed with it and cable was 24 hours a day and obama has lost his mojo. there is something about august

going into september where everyone in wra gets all wee-we' d up. up." 50 percent of those polled now disapprove of the president's handling of health care...a decline reflected in his overall approval ratings as well. that increasing public skepticism extends to congress as well. >> you can stand up and tell us your answer on obama care. we demand an answer now! gwen: well, in the interest of generating light over heat, we decided to take your questions to our washington week truth squad here.... we got hundreds of them, from 42 states and a few foreign countries too...we'll get to as many as we can... but first, an update...how real ceci is all of this skepticism we're seeing? >> it is certainly real. as we all know, polls are snapshots in time and the last several weeks have not been a good period for this white

house. they have lost control of the message. they have been caught by surprise about the reaction to the idea of dropping this government-sponsored option that is sometimes known as a public plan. it's interesting, though, in our polling, the new poll that's come out, president obama still remains pretty personally popular. his own favorability rating is 57%. that's a good, healthy number for a president. then you ask the question, how do you feel about his ability to make the right decisions? well, it comes down to 49%. and then when we ask, how do you feel he is doing in terms of handling the health care debate, it drops down to 46% approval. so you can see that the public still likes him, and that's the good news for the white house because they're going to have him selling this thing right after his vacation. but in terms of the details, the public is confused at a minimum and upset in many instances. gwen: peter, presumely the folks in the white house are looking at numbers of their own which

reflect the same kind of erosion. do they have a plan of what to do other than ripping up the troops of the democratic national committee as he did yesterday? >> that's part of the play. as a certain point, the white house is cognizant that the idea of a bipartisan plan is unlikely. in the end, it's going a democrats-only bill. they have 60 votes in the senate and they have a sizable majority in the house. they're not going to say that when people ask them that. no, of course we want a bipartisan plan. you heard the president yesterday, look, he says the republicans have made a calculated decision to deny me a victory just as they did with clinton in the 1990's. you can hear in their voice how they have basically come to the idea that they're going to have to shove through what they want. the caucus are complicated in their own way. gwen: we have so many questions from our viewers. i'll start with this general one for you, naftali. what are the top reasons for the increasing costs of health care and how do the plans from obama

in congress address them? this is from wes in illinois. >> i mean, obviously, there is an array of things that are going into this and an array of different theories. one of the big reasons that everyone talks about is the incentive system that we have set up right now encourages doctors and patients to get as much health care and as many procedures as possible rather than focusing on the ones that might be for effective. it isn't an incentive for that one of the things that lawmakers on both sides are wrestling this -- and you're seeing this right now specifically with the senate finance committee that met last night, six members of that committee, they're trying to figure out to get that under control, how to reward doctors for better jot comes rather than ordering many tests as possible. gwen: you mentioned the gang of six, republicans, democrats trying to come up with a middle ground. i have a question for you, jeanne, from bob in california. he says america elected a democrat majority to congress and the white house. how in blazes, he writes, did he end up with a subcommittee of

equal representation by the minority? >> well, i think that in the senate, they have 60 votes, but it's an illusion nature number. even the democrats are not united around one plan. so that's part of it. they had to come up with a compromise that was going to appeal to the broadest number of democrats and hopefully some republicans as well. and those moderate republicans who are in the negotiations in many ways represent the voices of the conservative democrats who are not in the room. in addition, the white house from the beginning said they did want a bipartisan plan. if possible, they wanted to see that created. and so it was a goal to try to work with the republicans. three stepped forward, and i don't think max baucus was prepared to walk away from those three until it's certain they can't come to terms because baucus would like to have republican votes onboard. gwen: we have a lot of questions about the role of the senate but

i want to get to a couple of nuts and bolts questions. a lot about medicare. keep in mind there is not one bill everyone has agreed on. people still want to know. people like ruth from new york who writes, i am on medicare. would i be required to purchase additional insurance? >> no, there are no changes like that envisioned to the medicare program. while we're on the subject of what is required under medicare an what's not, there has been a lot of confusion about this idea of end of life counseling. there is not in any present bill any mandatory end of life counseling. so in terms of people -- gwen: that's what we have been hearing. >> that's right. for the people that are on medicare now, they're over 65 years old or disabled, 45 million of them, they'll basically keep their same policies. some of them by gap coverage, that is what ruth may be referring to which is extra coverage. you don't have to do that we can get into some of the policy

changes within medicare. for beneficiaries, things will stay pretty much the same. gwen: nap tally, here is another medicare question for you. to achieve universal health care, this is david from wyoming and utah, to achieve universal health care, why not cover everyone under medicare, it seems simpler than creating new pros? >> there have been proposals to that effect. one of the slogans you'll hear is medicare for all. it's a system that people like. it's popular. it seems to work. that's one of the proposals. the problem is, just doing it that way would first of all be very expensive and it would be an enormous additional government program or entitlement which a lot of people are opposed to. so between the finances and the sort of philosophy. that probably isn't going to fly. gwen: jeanne alluded to this question of influence and to the degree different members of congress and the white house are being influenced by people on either side of the issue. here is a question from doug in

colorado, peter can handle this. how much does the health industry spend on lobbying and political contributions. i want to you pick up on that as well. >> you may know the actually number. they're increasing this year and they're on different sides of this issue. that's what really interesting and complicated about this. in the 1990's, had you a much mormono lithic opposition part of the health care industry toward the things that president clinton was talking about. this time you have a lot of health care, portions of that lobby on the side of what president obama is doing or at least on the side of some version of what president obama has talked about. there is sort of a cross purposes at this point. gwen: is it real, this new shift in attitude? >> the new shift in attitude -- gwen: among the industry who say they signed on to the plan. >> they are conflicted. they are conflicted. they're spending $1.5 million a day on lobbying. it's on record to become the biggest television advertising adversary war in washington since 1993.

and they are conflicted because they don't know what's going to come out and they're try to influence the senate drafting of its legislation. all of the action is done in the house. so they know how well they fared over there. gwen: to be clear, there are three different bills that came out of the house, true? >> they have to be cobbled together before the final vote in the house after the august break. they have a sense of -- they won their wars over there. those battles are pretty much done. but the senate, that game is wide open right now. so, for instance, the insurance companies are on tap to lose their supplemental payments in medicare. they don't want to lose them. so they're working the senate pretty hard to try to preserve them over there so it's still in play. so it's not that they have come out necessarily against a piece of legislation because we don't have one. so what they're still trying to do is influence the details that could show up in the senate bill. as a consequences, you have health -- you have insurance companies standing up next to the president saying we're for it. meanwhile, their financing some

of the groups that are running opposition to it. >> gwen, the main reason that some of these industry stakeholders have remained at the table is because theye dreaming of 46 million new customers. there is a big economic incentive for eth g 6íp

auntwaios rig

another sort of fluel know, we faclha w best. advertising and donations, i mean, the unions give a huge democrats who are in congress. they have a position on this. there are so many interest groups who care about what happens with health care reform, it's hard to say that particular check had more influence than these 100 other checks that came from other groups as well. there is just a whole lot of money around this. >> it is true people on the key health committees, they get a lot of money from the health industry. max baucus is an interesting guy right now. he is on the hot seat. he is trying to lead the bipartisan group that has the last hope that there will be a deal. a lot of democrats are very

unhappy with him. they are afraid he has been making too many concessions to the republicans. they are afraid he has dragged this out and they're ready to have this wrapped up so that they can push forward with perhaps a democrats only bill. gwen: peter -- go ahead. i was going to ask you whether the white house is able to maintain the kind of arms length they said it will on these lobbying issues. >> that's a very good question. the president is meeting in the oval office today with tom dash shal who was the former senate majority leader, someone he wanted to make his secretary of health and human services until a tax flap knocked that nomination out. he is a very smart person when it comes to health care. has written a book about it. at the same time he is working or advising the industry at the same time. multiple entanglements with different players. is he an advisor to the president or the industry? is he both? friends on the finance committee, not so much with max

baucus or the others. where does everybody stand and how does everybody balance these different ideas? it's a very complicated issue right now. gwen: it's not so simple to maintain arms length. a question from james in california for you ceci, another nuts and bolts question but we heard reference in our open. he asks will the taxpayer foot the bill for the coverage for the millions of aliens in this country? >> absolutely not. everybody has said, every democratic leader, the white house, etc., that this is not about providing health care to illegal immigrants. gwen: where is this coming from? >> there has been a few hot button issues that have been introduced into the health care debate. illegal immigration is one of them, abortion is another, end of life is yet a third. i think there is consciously or unconsciously an attempt to eject these volatile issues into the debate. it gets people worked out about it that otherwise might not be concerned about it and such strong opponents. we have seen that interestingly

across the board in every volatile social issue can name, it's been brought into this. >> what is really interesting was watching that town hall that you showed a clip of barney frank. he is asked about this issue, why are you covering illegal aliens and he says we don't. they say read the bill. he picks up a copy of the bill and the passage says there is no coverage for illegal immigrants in the bill. they boo. they don't believe him. there is a deep well of skepticism and distrust and cynicism on some part of the electorate at least that they don't believe the facts as they are being presented to them. gwen: even in the liberal districts. >> even in the liberal districts. gwen: will abortion or fertility treatments be covered under these bills, she wants to know? >> abortion, no. fertility treatments, that is a good question. i can't say for certain. i don't even know that they have thought a lot about it because

generally what congress is trying to do is say that we would like an independent board mainly of physicians, nurses, etc. to establish what should be called the basic minimum benefits package. now, if you look out in the private marketplace right now, there are a few insurance plans that cover fertility treatments, not a lot. so if that's a guide, my guess is it probably wouldn't. it's also quite expensive. i don't think it would fall under this notion of a basic package. gwen: jeanne, rita from kentucky wants to know why isn't anyone discussing tort reform as a way of reducing health care costs? >> because it's one brick too many. it would be hard to build. the president has acknowledged that lawsuits have some effect on the cost of health care. obviously, the conservatives and

republicans and democrats don't agree on what degree. gwen: we heard dick army saying -- >> they throw all kinds of numbers out. you can talk to one side they give you a bunch of statistics. you go to the other side, you get a whole other set. it's hard to figure out if you're just talking to both sides. the president has acknowledged that something along these lines ought to be done, but he has said it has to be done after health care reform is passed. and the primary reason for that is it is -- it's like abortion. you cannot put an explosive issue like that it will blow it up for sure. gwen: who knows what is happening right now. before we wind up, i want to get to a couple questions we have on the public option, the so-called public option. that is the basis for many questions whether this is going to be a government-run insurance program. i am concurrently unemployed, will the plan give me an option that is free such as one that is

in the united kingdom? free, probably not unless she were to qualify for medicaid which is our current system of health care for the poorest of the poor in this country and even then, that is generally not free. there are still co-payments that individuals make. so, no. on the other hand, there is a vision that people of limited income might get some kind of discount. sometimes they're described as subsidies that could go to this thing called the exchange, think of it almost like a health care bazaar, a marketplace where there are lots of different health plans lined up and presumely they would tell you the price and what kind of coverage you would get and you can try to pick one maybe with your discount coupon if you're eligible for it. now, that doesn't get into the public plan, which is a whole another issue that we can -- gwen: but the pup option would be one of the things they could choose from at that bazaar? >> the idea is one offering from

the government, a nonprofit, sort of no big c.e.o. million dostal his or multimillion dostal his. it's a fascinating thing. president obama has never felt that strongly about a public option, and i know i can imagine the e-mails i'm about to get. gwen: from nancy in washington state wants to know why the single payer approach never gained tracks, for instance? >> he was a supporter of single payer way back when he was a state senator in illinois. he quickly came to realize in the united states of america, that is not a politically viable route to take and he is nothing if not a pragmatist. >> that is why the public option is so controversial among critics, they see it as a trow june horse. if you put in a public option that private insurers can't compete against and ultimately of course government will piece by piece take over the system. they view him as someone who is

secretly trying to get there even though he said he is not. gwen: public option, going to happen still? >> i don't know. i think that it's on life support right now. i think what we're -- it may come out of the house. i think the president right now is centered on one goal. that is he has to have a senate bill because you can't go to conference without one. so i think we have reached a point where co-op is great, whatever. get him a bill so they can go to conference. if you have co-ops and a public plan, what you might look at is a trigger where you start out with co-ops, if they work, terrific, if not a public plan. gwen: that's what they're talking about in these meetings on capitol hill that is going on. >> it is. the people who support the public option aren't sure they can get the 51 voths that they need to get this through. there is this issue called reconciliation which is whether or not they will be able to pass at least some of the provisions of the health care vote need. that would be a huge development.

gwen: the time flies by. we have a lot more questions to get to. but we'll tackle more of your questions online, in a special expanded "washington week" webcast. you can find it at pbs.org/washington week. and before we go tonight..."washington week" condolences go out to the families of two giants in our business. robert novak, one of the hardest-working and most influential washington columnists of his generation. and don hewitt, the creator of 60 minutes and driving force behind much of the century's best journalism. each in his own way changed the way we do business. they will be missed. as always, keep up with daily developments on the "newshour with jim lehrer." and we'll see you again right here, next week, on "washington week." good night. >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by boeing and the national mining

association. major funding for "washington week" is also provided by the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> we are pbs