not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring and they have been in recent years so are the profits of the private health insurance companies from 2003 to 2007 the combined profits of the nation's major health insurance companies increased by 170%. a lot of talk about that issue? are we about to maybe suggest there's something wrong when we are the only major country in the industrialized world that has a system dominated by private insurance companies whose function is not to provide health care but to make as much money as possible and while more and more americans are losing their jobs and health insurance i've got some good news. there is some economic growth. the top executives in the health care industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. there is good some news. it isn't just william maguire, the former head of the united health the several years ago accumulated stock options worth $1.6 billion. anybody have a problem with one body in the health care industry getting $1.6 billion in stock options? you have on average on the top seven companies the average is $14.2 mi

further, and not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. from 2003 to 2007 the combined profits of the nation's major health insuranceompanies increased by 170%. health care costs are soaring. people can't afford health insurance, and, yet, the profits of the private health insurance companies have gone up by 170% from 2003 to 2007. and while more and more americans are losing their jobs and their health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. it is not just william mcgwire, the former head of united health, who several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion, or cignac.e.o. who made more than $120 million in the last five years, it's not just them. it's the reality that c.e.o. compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million. 46 million americans have no health insurance, more are underinsured and we, apparently, have the money to pay exorbitant compensation packages to the heads of private health insurance

there are abundant problems in our current system that are routine visits to the doctor can be surprisingly expensive. too many people have to go without basic care for a host of reasons, whether they're unemployed, work if a business without health care or perhaps have a preexisting condition. the task before us is to ensure that all americans have access to quality health care without degrading the quality of care for anyone. in other words, those who are happy with their care and that is the majority of americans, don't want to have to sacrifice their care in order to take care of the problem of those who are having issues. and i do mean by "access to care," rather, i don't mean by "access to care," access to a government waiting list. there are two ways to approach health care reform while trying to keep costs in line. one, which president obama says he rejects, is to create a competitive marketplace in which consumers get to pick the plan that works the best for their families. competition helps the consumer. the more competition, the better. and this concept does not include a washing

not surprisingly big jenny still defends the line he gave about rumsfled end the farewell sermon.he calls in the best secretary of defense ever and thinks his hard-charging style was just what what was needed to bring about change. host: here are a couple more calls. this is the republican lead. caller: thank you. i wanted to ask your guest if he has ever heard of the situation -- march 2003 when the war began -- where it a country with inspectors on the ground could go off to iraq not signing anything, have they ever started a war like that? i remember in the first world war for the shot the austrian die and the the austrians demanded to go into serbia to look for the conspirators. that was the reason austria began the war because serbia would not let them go in. guest: well, they genuinely believe there would be weapons of mass destruction i don't think there were inventing that rationale. one of donald rumsfeld's more embarrassing moments even a couple of months into the war where he was insisting the new where the weapons of mass destruction were and it was only a matter of ti

iran dominate the news conference, not surprisingly. i think it was important and the president thought it was important to take a question using the very same method that you are using to report information on the ground. i will not make apologies for that. host: the questioner asked about the designated hitter. guest: they called him the night before and said we might be interested in a question from an iranian. he had a great question directly from an iranian. the problem with that is that americans come to watch press conferences and they expect a spontaneous exchange from reporters. the white house pre-arranged this thing and that is why so many journalists are upset with this. it was a well intentioned thing on both sides. it is not exactly the right thing. host: is it always spontaneous? guest: the fact:ap is that ap always gets the first question. they know the top four or five news stories. iran on that given day was a top agenda item. the one thing that is getting lost here is that nico asked a difficult question. he did not g

iran dominate the news conference, not surprisingly. i think it was important and the president thought it was important to take a question important to take a question using the very same method that i do not -- i will not make apologies for that. host: the questioner referred to him as a designated hitter. guest: yes, they called him the night before and said, we might be interested in a question from an iranian. he got a great question directly from an iranian. he sent an e-mail out and sought questions from people directly from iran. the problem was that is that americans come to watch a press conference and expect a spontaneous exchanges between reporters and the white house. the white house pre-arranged this thing. that is why many journalists were upset with this. even though it was well- intentioned on both sides, i think it is not exactly the right venue for that. >> we always see the president reading off names of people he seemingly preselected. guest: yes, and the ap knows it will get the first question that almost every pre

winston churchill, the a great line from world war ii surprisingly, lost the election and in the middle of the conference in july 1945, the labor party won a and created a new government and the new prime minister was going to be ernest bevin. he would turn out to be not only opposed to a jewish state but some say are you personally anti-semitic and hostile one a personal level to a creation of a jewish state in palestine. he would have liked the mandate that britain had to continue possibly with united states replacing the british but with the same policies in tact. this is ironic because labor party had a long tradition of supporting the jewish state and we ever monitions if you look at what people in jewish palestine were saying, there was a euphoria when labor, when they heard over the radio the labor party had won and created a new government they believed this finally means the restrictions on immigration by the white paper the british had instituted, restrictions of jewish immigration would be lifted and they would eventually get a jewish state. the euphoria would be short-lived

surprisingly short on the case involving firearms, on the case involving the firefighters in connecticut. they were short opinions, and not a lot of discussion and procure yum. the approach makes it easier for judges to ground their decisions, making it more difficult to see if the reasoning was justified. judge sotomayor may already be following that as i notice with some of the opinions we have seen. wants to -- more international law, not less. ominously, judge sotomayor states -- quote -- "international law and foreign law will be very impornt in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled issues in our legal system. it is my hope that judges everywhere will continue to do this because, within the american legal system, we're commanded to interpret our law in the best way we can, and that means looking to what other anyone has said to see if it has persuasive value." close quote. the judge makes, i think, an audacious claim that the american legal system commands judges to look at foreign law and highlights the role of making decisions on unsettled cases. there have been and w

not surprisingly, my focus was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal, which accounts for at 51% of america's electricity generation. both of these goals have been achieved in the bill that is before us today. electricity rates will be only modestly affected. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that by 2020, the cost of the entire program for the cyclical -- typical american family will be $175 per year. the empire medal protection agency projects that the near term cost for the typical family from all elements of this legislation will be between $80.100 $10 per year. that is about 20 cents a day for the typical american family. the claims by the opponents that this legislation will impose enormous electricity price increases are wrong. the bar mental agency projects that by 2020 the usage of coal in our economy will grow as compared to today's usage. that may seem counterintuitive in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions. let me repeat that. the epa predicts that by 2020, call usage will actually grow by the terms in th

was with the epa at the time and did a very good study of this plant in baltimore and found not surprisingly increase lung cancer risk of people exposed to chromium and in the regulatory interest of people were exposed at one micrograms per cubic meter they were exposed the old osha standard is 52 micrograms. so even at one microgram per cubic meter they were exposed would have increased risk of lung cancer. they tried to get a hold of the study is that the epa was doing but they could not do it. so what they did come of this was fascinating because they were trying to stop the lawsuit and force the issue they developed a stimulated population then conducted a study on them. on the basis of what we know, this is what we think the workers should look like and said there is no excess risk of lung cancer. eventually through the freedom of information act there were able to get the raw data and were able to do so more alchemy ed made the results go wait that workers were never exposed above the current 52-microgram label did not -- level did not faze excess rest. for july 1 of the judges said it

we have seen a little friction, surprisingly little friction, i think that is in part because they're so sensitive to how congress operates and to the

not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. from 2003-2007, the combined profit of the nation's major health insurance companies increased by 170%. health care costs are soaring, profits of the health insurance companies are also soaring. and while more and more americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. it is not just william magoya, the former head of united health, who several years ago, mr. president, several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion. hmm, okay? $1.6 billion a few years ago for the c.e.o. of united health and we don't have enough money to provide health care to people who are uninsured. and it's not just henry signa, ed amway made $112 million the last seven years. the fact, is the c.e.o. for the top seven health insurance companies now averages over $1 $114 million apiece. moving towards a health care program which provides universal, comprehensive and quality health care for all w

not surprisingly we have concerns.e meaning indian industry and we meaning the tata sons specifically. as an american, i can sympathize with any sentiment that seeks to create american jobs, but as an internationalist i also believe that such protectionist policies cannot be isolated and will eventually engender other limitations on trade around the world. earlier i mentioned a few elements of an international multilateral agenda that i think president obama intends to use to bring indian to a global solution to global challenges. and i do believe that that's the right way to go and that india and the united states should make a priority. the cleaning away of the bilateral issue that still be doubled the relationship. and if the close bilateral partnership is really going to be considered a given, which was the word that i used earlier, then there really has to be some give in on both sides. earlier i mentioned some areas of the bilateral relationship that still needs some work, and i feel optimistic about progress und

not surprisingly, chaney still defends the line he used about rumsfeld in a farewell ceremony in december, 2006 when cheney called rumsfeld the best secretary defense ever. he thinks rumsfeld's part charging stifel at the pentagon was just what was needed to bring back change. >> host: a couple more calls. tennessee this is michael on the republican line. >> caller: yes, sir, thanks for having me. i just wanted to say i was going to ask your guest if he has ever heard of the situation going back to march, 2003 when the war began where a country that had inspectors on the ground like we did, why it's not finding anything. have they ever started a war like that because i remember world war i where, you know, they shot the guy and they managed to go into serbia to look and that started the war because serbia wouldn't let them go in to look for the assassin. >> host: we will get a response. >> guest: they generally believed their weapons of mass destruction. i don't think they were inventing that rationale, and one of rumsfeld's more embarrassing moments was even if it couple of months into t

routine trip to the doctor's office can be surprisingly expensive and many fear if they lose their jobs or if they switch they will be left without health care. others who are unemployed may wonder how they can afford to see a doctor at all. so the question is, how can we reform health care so everyone has access to high-quality care without changing what works for millions of americans? president obama wants to centralize power in washington to change the way health care is obtained by all. he would create what he calls a "public option." this would not be an insurance program run by the public but run by the federal government. that is to say, bureaucrats in washington. and i believe it would result in a one-size-fits-all government system that depending on complex rules and financing schemes, some kind of federal health board, and, of course, higher taxes. it would inevitably create waiting lists for treatment and denial of care for many. why? the federal governments resources are not unlimited so health care for some will have to be delayed or denied to keep spending in check. the p

not surprisingly, my focus and the shaping of the bill on the energy and commerce committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal which accounts for 51% of americans oppose electricity generation. both of these goals have been achieved in the bill that is before us today. electricity rates will be only modestly affected the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that by 2020, the cost of the entire program for the typical american family will be $175 per year. the environmental protection agency projects that the near- term cost for a typical family, all elements of this legislation will be between $80.100 $10 per year. -- between $80.100 $10 per year -- $80 and $110 a year. by 2020, the usage of coal and our economy will grow. as compared to today's usage. it may seem somewhat counter intuitive. in a bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions, -- by 2020, coal usage in america, under the terms of this bill, will actually grow. as transportation electrifies the demand for electricity increases, and coal will still be the fuel of

the other teams, the dodgers kind of surprisingly are the number one team in that department followed by the pirates, giants, angels and the mets on the lowest percentage of runs that come from homers. >> jim: i think a lot of it has to do with jerry manuel again who took over for willie randolph anticipating that with a new ballpark because it's a pitcher's -- pitcher's park. you go back to the hitting drill the 80 breaking balls in a row where you have to hit it to the opposite field in about 6:00. that was designed they bring the machine on the road because situational hitting, hitting the ball the other way. advancing runners important to this ball club. >> gary: a good job by reimold to draw the walk here with two down. the first walk surrender by pelfrey in the game. that will give a shot to matt wieters who flied out to center first time up. kind of interesting on that let's, -- list, jirjs you have national league teams except one in the top five who scored most of their runs other than homers that. would be one of the teams that plays more like a national league team than may

not surprisingly over time the gses advantages enabled them to dominate the secondary mortgage market. today, they have more than $5.5 trillion in outstanding obligations, an amount that is almost 40% of the size of the entire u.s. economy. the systemic risk posed by the size of these entities was only magnified by tin ves or the perceptions that they were backed by the full faith and credit of the u.s. government. in september, those perceptions became reality. on september 7th, 2008 shortly after congress passed the gse regulatory reform legislation, the federal government placed fannie and freddie into conservatorship. the rescue was one of the most extraordinary federal interventions into the private sector and is on track to become one of the most expensive if not this most expensive. as part of the gses conservatorship agreement, treasury committed up to $200 billion to purchase preferred stock from each company through december 31, 2009. in exchange, freddie and fannie provided the treasury with $1 billion in senior preferred stock and warrants to acquire 80% of each gses. in a

not surprisingly the privilege has played a significant role in the justice department's response to civil litigation arising out of our counterterrorism efforts following 9/11. the state secrets doctrine remains strongly supported by today's supreme court. even in its decision granting habeas rights to terrorists. it's the limit right of protecting sources and methods of intelligence gathering and we expect the district court will use its discretion to accommodate this interest to the greatest extent possible. while citing the reynolds state secret case i mentioned earlier in doing so. i oppose any efforts including this bill that invite the courts to deviate from the sound procedures they currently follow to protect vital national security information. it would authorize courts not to ex parte proceedings in claims and it would prevent courts being able to dismiss a case when the government cannot defend itself without using privileged information. the obama administration is clearly not enamored with the approach of this legislation. and has adhered to the court to the doctrine as

not surprisingly the privileges has played a significant role in the justice department's response to civil litigationjl@ arising out of our counterterrorism efforts following 9/11. the state secrets doctrine remains strongly supported by today's supreme court. even in its decision granting habeas litigation rights to terrorists justice kennedy in his majority opinion acknowledged the government's interest in front protecting methods of intelligence-gathering and stated we expect the district court will use this discretion to use this interest to the greatest extent possible while citing the reynolds state secret case in doing so. i oppose any efforts including this bill that invite the courts to deviate from the sound policies they follow to protect information. h.r. 984 would preclude judges to giving away branches national security and would authorize courts not to use ex parte proceedings in conducting a review of privileged claims and it would prevent courts from being able to dismiss a case when the government cannot defend itself without using privileged information. the obama

in not surprisingly, cheney still defends the line he used about rumsfeld at the farewell ceremony in december 2006 were cheney told rumsfeld the best secretary of defense ever. he thinks rumsfeld is hard charging style at the pentagon was just what was needed to bring about change. >> host: here are a couple of more calls. murphysboro tennessee, michael on the republican line. >> caller: i was just going to ask your guest if he had never heard-- i'm going to back to march of 2003 when the war began where cantor you had inspectors on the ground like we dad-- did they ever start a war like this? i remember well for one, where they shot the austrian guy and the austrians demanded to go to serbia to look for the killers are the conspirators and that was the reason austria started the war because serbia would not let them go in to look for the assassin of the student. >> host: michael, we'll get a response. >> guest: well, they generally believed there were going to be weapons of mass destruction. i don't think there were inventing that rationale. and come on one of rumsfeld passmore emba

1980's and 1990's, and it's true that there was a very mixed experience with cappation, although surprisingly there's a number of practices in massachusetts that operate on a risk deal, but how does this deal with capitation. first of all, the initial payment level that we give to this group of physicians and hospitals are derived from the historical experience of that provider group. we're not setting some artificial member to meet our budget expectations. secondly, one of the criticisms of capitation was there might be incentive to avoid sicker patients. well, we adjust our payments based on every year, based on the health status and morbidity of those statements, that that physician practiced and that hospital is caring for. third, we're adjusting the payment every year in line with inflation. now not the kind of medical inflation that many providers have been earning over the last decade, but still, capitalittation was often at the end of the year is how can we lower the payment? we're not talking about that. and finally to the criticism that there might be withhold willing of care, under

now not surprisingly the privilege has played a significant role in the justice department's response to civil litigation arising out of our counter-terrorism efforts following 9/11. the state secrets doctrine remains strongly supported by today's supreme court. even in its boom at the and decision granting habeus litigation rights, justice kennedy in his majority opinion and ballots the government's use legitimate interests and for detecting intelligence gathering and stated they expected this record will use its discretion to accommodate the centrist with the greatest extent possible, while citing the reynolds fates ikard case i mentioned earlier in doing so. i oppose any efforts including this bill that in by the courts to deviate from the sound procedures they currently follow to protect vital national security information. h.r. 984 would preclude judges from giving away to the executive branch is the assessment of fascial security. it would authorize courts not to use ex parte proceedings in conducting a review of privilege claims and it would prevent courts from being able to di

with the environmental protection agency at the time, a very good study of this and found not surprisingly increased one cancer risk of people exposed to chromium and the question of the regulatory interested people were exposed at 1 microgram per cubic meter they had excess risk of lung cancer. the old standard was 52 micrograms per cubic meter so even that 1 microgram, people exposed for their lifetime at that level would develop an increased risk of lung cancer so powerful evidence. they tried to get ahold of this study epa was doing to get the raw data but they could not do it so what they did and this was fascinating because there were essentially trying to stop this lawsuit, to force the osha standard, the invented a simulated population and then conducted a study on it. they said on the basis of what we know about this, this is what we think the work should look like and they concluded there was no risk of lung cancer. well, then eventually, through freedom of information act they were able to get the raw data and of course they did another epidemiological alchemy in the results go

not surprisinglying at a time weapon we are contemplating health care reform in this country, in the huge expense of health care, the fiscal unsustainable of medicare program, it's also important to point out tobacco directly increases the costs of health care in our country. more than $100 billion is spent every year to treat tobacco-related decembers. $100 billion of taxpayer money. and about $30 billion of that is spent through our medicaid program. now, america has a love-hate relationship with tobacco, and congress, i should say, and state government does as well. you'll recall that tobacco actually presents a revenue source for the state and federal government. one of the most recent instances is when congress passed a 60-cent plus additional tax on tobacco in order to fund an expansion of the state children's health insurance program. so government has become addicted to tobacco too because of the revenue stream that it presents. and that's true at the federal level and at the state level. but because of the political clout of tobacco companies years back when the f.d.a. regul

not surprisingly the health insurance lobe launched a massive campaign to prevent inclusion of a public health insurance option. i guess competition is a good thing, the insurance companies think unless they are the ones who have to compete, because we know if you have a public option, insurance companies are going to behave. the president says repeatedly that the whole point of the public option, an option. but the fact that a public plan exists to complete with private plans will keep the private plans more honest. we've done that with student loans. 15 years ago the only game in town for students by and large if they wanted to borrow money to go to college was to go to the local bank or some other service. all private, all pretty much unregulated. president clinton in the early 1990's decided maybe we should have a direct government program so students could borrow directly from the federal government. you you know what happened? banks brought their interest rates down, the banks started to provide better service, the banks just based better. that's exactly what we'll do with this pu

the one man who surprisingly was not too worried but hiram weitzman who asked his comment on austin's speech. he says this is a stillborn project produphñ on the spur of the moment by some fertile brain in the united states state department. and weitzman wrote to truman that he, the american president, would keep emphasizing the need for partition as the only possible solution for security and peace in the middle east. he warned truman you cannot turn the clock back before november 29th, 1947 vote. the only choice, he wrote truman, for the jewish people is between statehood and extermination.dmz history andd: providence, he we truman, have placed this issue in your hands. and i am confident that you will yet decide it in the spirit of moral law.[v in a sense he was right. truman had not chosen to be the president put into this position. but as truman himself came to think with a quote that brent mentioned that providence had placed this heavy responsibility in his hands fortunately, for the jews world over truman eventually held his ground and even with the opposition of such sterlin

although our net ex ports behavior has been surprisingly good during this -- >> ex ports falling less than imports. >> that's right. >> not exactly positive. >> but that will continue to be a source of uncertainty for businesses as they think about where to position themselves and how to deploy resources. that's a bunch of the issues. >> there's a lot of questions here on inflation and how you measure inflation. before we get to that i'm going to take a quote that you made. and that is "disinflationary pressures were weaker than the fed had feared" which does that mean we need to evaluate inflation sooner i guess. and the questions coming up, what are the indicators the fed is using as a measure of inflation today, since we all know there are -- know there are many. are you confident that many are right? and do you think the model is using -- the models that fed is using are effective to forecast inflation? i'm not sure any of us can. but i'm asking you fairly on that one since all of us have been off on that issue. >> right. so there has been a lot of research recently on -- which un

we have seen very little direction surprisingly little friction and given what is on the table so far i think in part because they are so sensitive to how congress operates into the buttons you can and can't push in order to deliver out comes here and i think that is probably the least appreciated feature of this presidency noir. i also thing going back to something i mentioned initially, a lot of it depends on the sort of little interactions that add up so much overtime. the president has so far demonstrated his willingness. >> off immediately offer of policies that democrats don't like. for instance in this budget he proposed limiting the charitable deductions that while the taxpayers can take, that went over like a ton of bricks and he took it off the table almost read away. that is something that president bush never.com president clinton never did. throws congress off his game. and like everybody, they are used to cycles and they're used to a relationship dynamic that just isn't there right now and so a lot of our -- we struggle to get our hands around what exactly is unfolding a

not surprisingly, this price tag is expected to increase. spending this kind of money to only insure 16 million people should be disappointing to everybody, disappointing to every american. just when our economy is trying to achieve some equilibrium, slamming it with these kinds of costs for these few results i don't even believe is a good-faith effort on our part. i believe everyone wants to solve these complex health care challenges, but i think it's so important to be thoughtful, careful to take a moment, step back and tape a deep breath. it makes no sense from a policy standpoint to rush these enormously complex decisions with really unbelievable results just to finish by the august recess. it doesn't make any sense. you're talking, mr. president, about people's health care here. we are talking about the health and safety of their families. as the adage goes, it's better to invest the time to get it right the first time instead of getting it wrong expeditiously. we need to get back to a middle ground and follow through on the promises th