i do not blame the cbo. i do not blame the senator. i believe the unrealistic time lines which are artificial that have been imposed contributed to the $600 million mistake. $600 million may not sound like a lot where talking about trillions of dollars, but six and a million dollars is real money. his amendment has a worthwhile goal. we also deserve to have an informed debate and to get the details right as we are voting on them. to ensure that kind of mistake is not happen again, i would propose my amendment c-23. my amendment is designed to simply slow us down so we can get it right. it is not to slow it down for slowing it down and say. my amendment would require that before the finance committee votes on any amendment to the americans help the future act, the scoring estimates must be publicly available. it must be posted on their respective web sites for at least 24 hours before a vote. this does not need an offset. it is designed to help us save money, not spend money. i would urge my colleagues to support it. >> you seem to be t

the chairman's mark does that, according to cbo. what we know is that revisions are being made, and what we have to be certain of before we cast a vote in this committee, which the senator of delaware says very appropriately is the end of the beginning, because there are many steps in this process, but what you're -- but what we are looking at before we are done -- and having an assurance that we know what the cbo analysis is before we vote. that is what senator bunning has described, and i would ask the chairman, can you assure us that we will see a cbo analysis before we have a final vote in this committee? >> i say to my good friend from north dakota absolutely. that is certainly what i want to see. i think that is certainly what each member of this committee wants to see. >> and will that cbo analysis be available on the website? >> absolutely. >> and the language that we would be voting on, you talk about conceptual language. that has been the history of this committee for more than 30 language. what is conceptual language? it

the cbo and democratic staffers. and that is why they are absolutely terrified of what will happen if they do not get -- neil: we should just remind folks that the top guy from the congressional budget office said that when it came to those folks participating in the medicare advantage program, they would likely see their benefits cut under the reform as it is presently and visions. now, joe biden was saying today, as you might have for, which are going to fix this -- as is presently in visions -- envisioned. now, joe biden was saying today, as you might have heard, we are going to fix this. >> all but the most die-hard partisans on the democratic side realize that when it comes down to a dispute between the ostensibly non-partisan head of the congressional budget office and the very partisan vice president of the united states, clearly people are going to buy the cbo numbers before they buy the vice president's. they had to admit that the plan to tax the so-called gold insurance benefits that some would get will, in

the cbo has scored the savings. neil: i know what you are saying, and this is what i think we have to stay on message for my simple minds. if health-care costs are still climbing at this excess of rates, and medicare is still growing at this excess of right, how can we figure out what the savings are and what we would have had without them? you know what i am saying? what medicare would have done without that? how can we just lift something out? >> let me tell you how the savings will be found in the system, what we mean when we say $500 billion for medicare and medicaid. what we're talking about how much medicare pays for services, so for instance, with health- care reform, as more people have insurance, we can reduce the subsidy that hospitals received for treating the uninsured, and that is a savings from the system, so it is savings like that, those payments updates, the way medicare pays for services, that is how you get at the savings. the cbo has found that it hasn't worked, and it is based on experience, and

that is what the cbo analysis has provided.senator conrad has indicated that medicare is very expensive. in his words, we have a false sense that we can continue paying for medicare advantage and at some point, we have to look people in the eye and tell people the truth about it. this mark does seek to take $113 billion out of the medicare and advantage program and that is going to result in less benefit to the citizens who now have enrollment in the medicare advantage program. in my home state, there are 60,000 medicare advantage beneficiaries. 27% of the medicare beneficiaries in my state. that is just a couple percentage points higher than the national average. since the creation of the medicare advantage program in 2003, the overall enrollment in private plans has been steadily increasing and beneficiaries now have more private plans to choose from than they did 10 years ago. as i indicated yesterday, about 90% of the people on medicare advantage are satisfied with the coverage that they are getting, which is in stark contr

i stick it is interesting that with the cbo -- i think it is interesting that what the cbo, later on, about one-quarter will go to the public option? is that about accurate? >> one-third of the 25 million that are expected to liberal. >> what percentage in the united states are not for-profit insurance plans today -- one- third of the 25 million are expected to mineral -- to enroll. a lot is offered by not-for- profit today. the profit motive senator rockefeller mentioned in his opening statement today, i mean, that is what has been demonized all day today, the profit motive. 44% of the plans in the united states, and a lot of them are the dominant plants that have been held up in this chart today. 44% are not-for-profit -- and a lot of them are in the dominant plants. senator rockefeller said that after two years, the government is not going to be running his plan. who is going to be running a public option after two years? who is going to be running the public option after two years? >> i believe in the rockefeller amendment, there is an administrator. >> who does the administrator

frankly we have pushed cbo away. when we ask them for an estimate, they will look at a narrow aspect of one part of it, and not see how it scores with relation to other parts. we finally got cbo to score the interrelationships of different visions. they started to do the. by the end of the process, we get to the final passage, and we then get the final score, we will have done what you want, namely, cbo will have gone to of all the amendments again by definition and look at the interaction among all amendments by definition, because it is looking at a final number. what we really want is the final number here. is it correct or incorrect? unfortunately, this is not precise. look at the discussion we had yesterday, satenator enzi on the medicare runs. we do the best we can. these are economists. this is not precise stop. we do the very best we can with what we have got, and i think they work hard, very hard, they're honest, objective, they are economists, academics, they are so committed to this public process and work

has cbo looked at this? >> i do not believe so. >> it is an ecological, if you reduce the penalty -- isn't it logical if you reduce the penalty and more than that for families, that people are going to opt for the penalty rather than buy insurance? crest i think it is logical that some would. the number, i do not know. at least based on my interpretation of what's cbo has told us this morning, they believed that most americans would go ahead and obtain coverage. if there is a financial penalty for not doing so. the size of the penalty is a factor with some, but it is not the main factor. i think you would have some last compliance. i did not think it would be substantial. >> wouldn't the cost to the government go up significantly, too? those folks who opted to pay the penalty would theoretically not be paying, not be insured. when they go to the hospital or one have an accident or contract a serious disease or marginal disease, those medical costs will probably end up be by the government specifically. you w

as you said, the cbo has backed this up. i would like to have a hearing. appointed director there. frankly, we need to get to the bottom of why this happened. what letters went back and forth and what was the thinking behind it. there are supreme court decisions behind this that say the beneficiaries have a right to know. this kind of communication is constitutionally protected as well. they are moving forward in the senate. that is moving ahead. they are churning through. i think they are at a disadvantage there. they are not using legislative language. they are using summaries of their proposals. unless you know the real value of these proposals, you can either find a huge cost or a lot of people not getting coverage. i think they are at a disadvantage not having the actual technical language in front of them, thereby not getting the real information on what this will mean to small businesses and other people were going to be affected by health care changing. neil: nancy pelosi is not going to allow for a vote on this measure. what do you make of that? >

it goes in some ways beyond what most people think of as a cbo cost system. it provided a great deal of information and i'll say something more about it specifically. then, of course we have the political process that followed throughout 1994. it seems to me that we are politically where -- we are politically where the clinton reform was in february or maybe june or maybe even september, although probably not that late of 1994. in the sense that the political process this year at least from what we heard from the president suggests that if there's going to be a bill assigned, it's going to be assigned on or before christmas eve. that gives only a few months. to complete the political process. from the policy development and anl littic standpoint, i would argue that we haven't gotten to january of '94 and may not -- february of 94 and we may not have gotten to june of '93 either. we know some things about what is emerging but we don't an awful lot. we don't know what the bill looks like. you can't fault a cbo for not being able to analyzed in detail that that

cbo has been wrong on every mandatory plan on the cost and outcomes. we can rely on cbo just like to the much of the difference given yesterday. they said employees' wages will generally declined by the amounts of feed that was ever quite -- otherwise pay. you will lose jobs, that is what they said today. you're going to move more. one program that creates work disincentives for the employees is medicaid. >> what does this have to do with your amendment? >> and has to do with the fact that i know where we're going. you assume we're not going there, but it never seen a government program not grow in health care. if in fact the government plan is competitive for people all said of the plan, they will move to the plan, except it will never be financially viable because the secretary will set the rates. the only way we'll have a plan by a bald head and have enough people in is to have a lower rate. just like the main public plan, the main has of public plan right now. -- maine has a public plan right now and it is a failure. >> this may turn out to be a fa

cbo says there will be 97% coverage.dramatic increase in the coverage today, and my guess is that if you would replace all of us -- if you were to replace all of us with people who had no health insurance, that republicans as well as democrats would vote against this amendment. you talk about offshoring. so many of these jobs could never be sent overseas. you have opposition from the retail establishment. those jobs are going to be of short -- offshored? no, the fact is that so many of the businesses have been providing insurance, but a lot of the companies that are not have failed to do so, relying on those who provide insurance to cover their dependents. there has not been a single plan that i know of from the minority, a single plan that would lift the coverage for people in this coverage anything close to 97%. no proposal that would be scored as coming anything close. so, i say to you, if you want to pose this, come up with a plan that reaches 97%. come up with a plan. all of those -- all of us hold a town hall meeti

by and large, senator baucus has moved that out of the cbo's scoring for his bill.light of hand, not fiscal responsibility. >> do you agree with the insurance reforms? i think that one thing that all the five bills have in common is this getting rid of some of these insurance practices like pre-existing conditions, that kind of thing. do you want those kinds of reforms? and if you do, will it be hard for you to vote against them because you don't like other aspects of health care reform? >> absolutely. we want the reform so that somebody with a pre-existing condition is not eliminated from coverage or priced out of coverage. for the last 20 years, i've worked in a hospital for the uninsured. this is an issue near and dear to my heart. that said, any system you put in place has to be financially sustainable. ultimately, if not, benefits are cut. again, i've worked in a hospital for the uninsured. i can tell you from firsthand experience, when the state had a trouble with their financing, our hospital and therefore our patients lost service. so, we have to have those

has cbo looked at this? >> i do not believe so. >> it is an ecological, if you reduce the penalty -- isn't it logical if you reduce the penalty and more than that for families, that people are going to opt for the penalty rather than buy insurance? crest i think it is logical that some would. the number, i do not know. at least based on my interpretation of what's cbo has told us this morning, they believed that most americans would go ahead and obtain coverage. if there is a financial penalty for not doing so. the size of the penalty is a factor with some, but it is not the main factor. i think you would have some last compliance. i did not think it would be substantial. >> wouldn't the cost to the government go up significantly, too? those folks who opted to pay the penalty would theoretically not be paying, not be insured. when they go to the hospital or one have an accident or contract a serious disease or marginal disease, those medical costs will probably end up be by the government specifically. you w

cbo says there will be 97% coverage.tic increase in the coverage today, and my guess is that if you would replace all of us -- if you were to replace all of us with people who had no health insurance, that republicans as well as democrats would vote against this amendment. you talk about offshoring. so many of these jobs could never be sent overseas. you have opposition from the retail establishment. those jobs are going to be of short -- offshored? no, the fact is that so many of the businesses have been providing insurance, but a lot of the companies that are not have failed to do so, relying on those who provide insurance to cover their dependents. there has not been a single plan that i know of from the minority, a single plan that would lift the coverage for people in this coverage anything close to 97%. no proposal that would be scored as coming anything close. so, i say to you, if you want to pose this, come up with a plan that reaches 97%. come up with a plan. all of those -- all of us hold a town hall meetings a

ccording to cbo.the last point i want to make is they always try to hit at the jury system and we all know that the jury system can be disruptive and uncomfortable. but under our constitution, it is supposed to be. it is often the last refuge of the individual when they are badly injured, when the forces of society are against them, when money for interest control of the executive. the founding fathers were keenly aware of the vulnerability of governors and legislative assemblies to both corruption and passing passion. what they trusted to remedy that was that we could get before a jury of our appears to have our problems heard. to have the insurance industry now coming forward to disabled piece by piece that fundamental constitutional prerogative of americans, implied through the 14th amendment, i think it is just wrong. it is something we need to guard against. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. >> a portion of the debate from orrin hatch on medical liability in rural and und

that having been said, we operate with the cbo analysis. in the house have adopted what we call a pay-for rule. meaning that we have to pay as you go. and this bill will come up subject to those rules. and we will live with the cbo analysis. but i got a little bit off on a tangent. but the prescription drug part "d," yes, i think we can get more savings from, if you give the government the negotiating power, but it may not be as much as the people had previously thought. >> we're going to be taking the last question. over here. >> good morning. i'm richard cornell. and we want to welcome you here. >> thank you. >> hello? got it. yes. the press has reported over the last two or three months that there's a division among members of the democratic majority in the house over certain provisions in the bill. and as i recall, the politico democrats have some resistance to the public option. and i wonder if you could talk a little bit about this -- these differences, and to what extent they may affect passage of a bill in the house that includes a

cbo says there will be 97% coverage.c increase in the coverage today, and my guess is that if you would replace all of us -- if you were to replace all of us with people who had no health insurance, that republicans as well as democrats would vote against this amendment. you talk about offshoring. so many of these jobs could never be sent overseas. you have opposition from the retail establishment. those jobs are going to be of short -- offshored? no, the fact is that so many of the businesses have been providing insurance, but a lot of the companies that are not have failed to do so, relying on those who provide insurance to cover their dependents. there has not been a single plan that i know of from the minority, a single plan that would lift the coverage for people in this coverage anything close to 97%. no proposal that would be scored as coming anything close. so, i say to you, if you want to pose this, come up with a plan that reaches 97%. come up with a plan. all of those -- all of us hold a town hall meetings and

cbo director can say it publicly, but the administration does not want the insurance companies to say the same thing to their beneficiaries. martha: thank you very much. trace: a colorado woman found herself in a frightening situation, suddenly attacked by a bull elk. she was kicked in the face by the animal. she jumped in her car and made a frantic call for help to her husband, who then called 911. listen to this. trace: the woman was taken to the hospital. she is expected to recover from those injuries. the death toll in georgia to the rising and the new pictures are heartbreaking. we'll take you to the scene of the flooding. you see the fire? the flooding and the fires in georgia and. president obama taking the podium in his first speech to the general assembly. libyan leader muammar qaddafi speaking at the un. he had a very interesting take in what he thought would be the best thing for america could be. to other people, then don't bother watching this commercial. i've taken precautions all my life to protect my identity. i've been in law enforcement all my life... and my identity

cbo also gives it a very positive school. it is one to save about $23 billion in this budget window. that is not a bad thing. we all talked about spending the cost curve. there is a lot of talk about it. there are not many provisions. there are several. this is one of them. it does bend the cost curve. the committee very valuable contribution to the country with this concept. we may not see the benefits of it for a few years. i do think we will see it in our lifetime. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> me at this as the question? -- may i just ask a question? i do not see this in the amendment itself. may be i missed it. >> he put it in the mark. >> this amendment is basic imprudence up on the mark. >> this is regarding the congressional procedure. what has been removed from the mark? is it the entire process that is reported to the finance committee? if not, it to be reported to the floor of the center had a chance to show is it? >> it is all part of it. >> it would enlarge the role of the congress. >> in what way? >> it

the cbo of trying to assign a cost figure when the savings may prove to be illusive.t suggests that perhaps we should take a bit of a different approach and enact legislation step by step towards our goals and see what the impact is. but there's a lot of consensus on many reforms, and i still believe that it's possible for the president to forge a bill that would be bipartisan. >> john mccain said the other day after the speech that he didn't think the president was really doing the hard bipartisan work, that he wasn't reaching out adequately. "time" magazine is reporting that you hadn't heard from the president on health care since july. is that still the case? >> well, it was until yesterday. but it's understandable that the president has been focusing on the so-called gang of six, the six members of the senate finance committee, three republicans and three democrats. that makes sense. they're the committee with jurisdiction. so i think that is an appropriate way for the president to have proceeded. but these issues are so complicated, they're so complex. this affec

cbo gives you zero credit for saving on those pilots. i think there is one area where cbo is underestimating it. i think that the potential to achieve success at -- substantial savings, to improve quality, comes from reforming these payment methods. you go a long way to do that in your bill. >> a lot of people complain is on medicare. what will happen to medicare as we do not have any further reform? will there not be further pressures to reduce the medicare spending and just the medicare spending in coming years? >> absolutely. we all know that there will be budget pressures. the bill, as you know, does improve prescription drug coverage. there is currently a donut hole. but i think these reforms, slowing the rate of increase in cost by requiring productivity improvement from the part of providers, by leveling the playing field between medicare, medicare plans, and the rest of the medicare program, insur es the slowdown and that helps the trust fund. by starting now, it will prevent congress having to do very severe and very crude chang

not only is paid for, it actually could, accoing to the cbo, actually sav a half of 1 peent of gdp inhe second tenure, that sods like a sliver, that would actually if it were true, add up to 1.3 trillion dollars which even today is real mon. the biggest problemnd the biggest criticism i woul have of i is as vid said the suidies that it providesto peoplender at or under 300% ofthe poverty level to buy insurancere way smaller than in the house counterpart. and in the other senate bill counterpart. anif you thought we were hearing lot of uproar about death panels, wait until people start calculating what this cod mean to them and how much potentially of tir income they could berequired to or askeo pay. >> woodruf which is why, vid, the democrats are not on board >> right tre is a lot of --. >> woodruff: some o are but me who are not. >>here are still the people who still want th public option. i think they ha unconscisly ca pit yate -- capitulated, theyon't realizit yet. they are going throughhe stages. buthen there are other people who will say it's really iortant we subside people at t

medicare advantage, what is now the believe on th behalf of the cbo? >> these are the bean counters, they say that if you cut $125 billion out of medicare advantage over the next 10 years, you will cut benefits. that directly contradicts what you just heard the president say. remember, this is specifically the medicare advantage program. 10 million seniors are enrolled in medicare advantage. there is a high degree of satisfaction. they like it. the money mostly comes from the planet -- from the federal government for medicare with a wide range of choice with which private insurers that want to go with. extra benefits, they get to cut those back if you cut $125 million out. bill: there are two issues on here. one is political. now that cbo saying that up to 1.7 million enrollees may drop the plan? >that, in itself, is a backtrack on the promise we have heard time and again? >> yes. bill: there is a financial issue. could you go into medicare advantage, using a scalpel, trying to get the waste out? >> if you can, why had he not done it already? if you co

will it be the cbo, another entity? >> i do not know that it has been designated, but obviously cbo is by law charged with letting you and america and more importantly, congress know how much legislation is going to cost. i certainly believe that they are going to enter a verdict in to what they bill costs, and i think that would certainly be a large part of this. i would not say binding, but it goes a big way. thanks, guys. i would it that date and we will get that out to you. -- i will get that date and we will get that out to you. >> on the house for today, democratic leader steny hoyer was asked by republicans when health care legislation might come to the full house for debate. the conversation is just over 10 minutes. >> we heard the president last night, and we are all coming off from an august recess were watched america wake up and really pay attention to what is going on here in congress and voice their opinion when it comes to health care. having watched that and having my own town hall meetings, watching oth

cbo says there will be 97% coverage.atic increase in the coverage today, and my guess is that if you would replace all of us -- if you were to replace all of us with people who had no health insurance, that republicans as well as democrats would vote against this amendment. you talk about offshoring. so many of these jobs could never be sent overseas. you have opposition from the retail establishment. those jobs are going to be of short -- offshored? no, the fact is that so many of the businesses have been providing insurance, but a lot of the companies that are not have failed to do so, relying on those who provide insurance to cover their dependents. there has not been a single plan that i know of from the minority, a single plan that would lift the coverage for people in this coverage anything close to 97%. no proposal that would be scored as coming anything close. so, i say to you, if you want to pose this, come up with a plan that reaches 97%. come up with a plan. all of those -- all of us hold a town hall meetings

the cbo says that the cbo also said in a letter that it will get worse in the second ten years. he is not shooting straight with us. 10 years of revenue to produce eight years of cost. annualial deficits. bill: he will be out of office by then so what does he care? >> exactly. looking here in my notes he says medicare, we are not going to cut medicare. here is his own white house web site paper it says $622 billion in medicare cuts including a 20% cut in medicare. bill: that's fraud and deficiency that's what he is cutting out. >> cut it now. go cut it out now. even before this bill gets passed. bill: i like the tone -- look, i want -- i think this marketplace deal could work. i think that the across state line things that you support and republicans support that could work. i think they can get it done. that's what i want to end with you. i think the public option is gone. he threw it right out the window. so, liberals are not going to like that. that's gone. >> bill, i don't agree with you. i think tonight he had a tougher tone on it than before. i hope you are right. bill: yo

reishower was running cbo, was probably a lot. you need a good judge of people looking at this saying probably yes or probably no. when you look at house bills in particular, the house bills in particular, it's very clearly not, it doesn't come close. the other contention the president made was that the bills would lower costs for everyone, families, businesses and government. again, this is an assertion that flies directly in the face of any, whatever analysis we do have of the bills emerging, essentially saying the exact opposite. that costs will go up for businesses. costs will go up for the government. and i'll talk about now. the one analysis that came out the other day from the lewen group, there are simulation models in various places. there are some academia. they did some analysis of the house bill and it brings out interesting facts about what is operative in these bills people probably should know before the final votes occur. one is that to get coverage under the bills that are moving through the house and the senate,

they believe the cbo has already given a tentative embrace that they're waiting for a formal scoring of that. if they get that, then they're going to be able to argue that we have been certified as achieved the president's goal of not adding to the deficit. one of the ways they do that is by going after insurance companies with this excise tax. that's something health economists say will bend the cost koufr. >> if the neutral is not necessarily controlling costs and a lot of folks fear that meeps higher taxes. what's the state of the millionaire tax? >> it's, i believe, dead. because by embracing that excise tax as the principal source of new revenue, he is doing two things at the same time. killing off that millionaire surtax the house was leaning towards passing. i talked to a blue dog last night who said now that that's gone, i can embrace this excise tax. but secondly, the deficit neutral don't mean reducing costs, but the insurance surtax is credited by the cbo with bending the cost curve down over the long-term. >> thanks very much. >>> let's take a look at this. how are the ma

reischauer was running the cbo, you don't need a yes or no but probably yes or probably no.talk about senator baucus. it's not -- it's very clearly not. it doesn't come blose. now, the other contention the president made was that the bills would lower costs for everyone. families, businesses, and government. again, this is anssertion that is flies directdy in the face of any whatever analysise do have of the bills emerging say essentially the exact opposite. that cost will go up for businesses, cost will go up for the government. and i'll talk about now the one analysis that just came out the over day from the luwen group, ther are some stimulations models. he has one, and his think tank has another, and tre are some out in academias and universities. and so they did do an analysis of the house bill. and it's -- it brings outome interesting facts about what's really operative. one is that to get coverage under the bills, they do one thing. they make people buy insurance. that's basically what it is. an individual mandate that says for the vast majority of in employers who kn

the cbo is telling us the cost to the average american will be dear, both in taxes and in paying for health care. they will be mailed by the government and insurance companies for higher costs generated from the government. as doug pointed out, there is enough agreement between democrats and republicans within portability, tort reform, cutting waste, abuse. let's do that. half a loaf is better than none at all. trace: i wanted to play this from jim bunning. >> i wanted to offer a transparency amendment in which we post legislative language, posted for 72 hours, and then we have a cbo score for this. the other side voted this down. trace: basically, they want the cbo to tell us how much this will cost, and they want to put it on on for 72 hours. >> i think all legislation should have that. everyone says that this is a legislation that congress needs. the senator is right. we need scoring. trace: max baucus says they do not have time to put this on line, but they took the weekend off. >> olympia snowe put it very well. she is a liberal republican, at best, and is working hard to get a

now with the various obama proposals, the cbo tells us we're looking at 5%. absolutely unprecedented as a number ten years out. so not adding those transfer programs, the $1 trillion health care costs and all that, would be the first place to go. >> i'm sure there are plenty of ways that they could actually rein in spending in terms of the plans on the table right now? >> well, absolutely. but i think it's not blowing up the things which are there, and there are various ways they could cut back. the president talks about finding $500 billion in medicare savings, and medicaid savings. well, that would help. why take that money and turn around and spend it immediately. so more of an emphasis on reducing the fiscal deficit would be key. >> let me ask you a question here, as it relates to health care, marty. i know that we're talking really broadly about the economy, and about deficits. but i really want to get your thoughts on the overall health care plan on the table. do you think it is realistic to have a public plan where you're probably talking about fewer d

cbo does not think cost shifting is that big of a deal. if we are underpaying hospitals by 30% with medicare, where will they make up that difference? studies show that a combined family of four will have higher premiums of $3,628 right now because of medicare and medicaid underpayments. so we will at exacerbate that underpayment. let me read a quick line from an editorial today. "the public option will not be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. a free people should be i reached at this advance of tierney." pretty harsh words. these are words that i think are appropriate for this moment. what do we not say let's make private health insurance work? why do we not work together to make it affordable for everybody? what we not pass legislation to address the problems we have? people that do not have health insurance, people that have pre- existing conditions to cannot get it, and the fact that it costs are rising so much. we could do that together if our agenda was not to have a government takeover of health ca

the cbo says that the cbo also said in a letter that it will get worse in the second ten years. he is not shooting straight with us. 10 years of revenue to produce eight years of cost. annualial deficits. bill: he will be out of office by then so what does he care? >> exactly. looking here in my notes he says medicare, we are not going to cut medicare. here is his own white house web site paper it says $622 billion in medicare cuts including a 20% cut in medicare. bill: that's fraud and deficiency that's what he is cutting out. >> cut it now. go cut it out now. even before this bill gets passed. bill: i like the tone -- look, i want -- i think this marketplace deal could work. i think that the across state line things that you support and republicans support that could work. i think they can get it done. that's what i want to end with you. i think the public option is gone. he threw it right out the window. so, liberals are not going to like that. that's gone. >> bill, i don't agree with you. i think tonight he had a tougher tone on it than before. i hope you are right. bill: yo

the cbo says that the cbo also said in a letter that it will get worse in the second ten years. he is not shooting straight with us. 10 years of revenue to produce eight years of cost. annualial deficits. bill: he will be out of office by then so what does he care? >> exactly. looking here in my notes he says medicare, we are not going to cut medicare. here is his own white house web site paper it says $622 billion in medicare cuts including a 20% cut in medicare. bill: that's fraud and deficiency that's what he is cutting out. >> cut it now. go cut it out now. even before this bill gets passed. bill: i like the tone -- look, i want -- i think this marketplace deal could work. i think that the across state line things that you support and republicans support that could work. i think they can get it done. that's what i want to end with you. i think the public option is gone. he threw it right out the window. so, liberals are not going to like that. that's gone. >> bill, i don't agree with you. i think tonight he had a tougher tone on it than before. i hope you are right. bill: yo

we traded proposals what the cbo again and again.nd in july, the democratic leadership took the most significant financing mechanism off the table. this was a huge setback for our work. and yet immediately we heard complaints that we were not done yet. but now here we are, the cry of impatience has won out and the artificial deadline was put in charge of this process. they have put moving quickly over moving correctly. it would be the same as if you had a house that was held -- have built when the contractor said was done and said, here is your house, move into more of. would you move your family in it it did not have windows, running water, without a roof? of course, it would be upsurged to do that. likewise, the deadline causing an end to the bipartisan work before it was done is just as absurd. i find it utterly and completely appalling. this is about reforming 16 of the economy. think of that. one out of every $6 -- on reforming 1/6 of the economy. and it is also about everybody's health and health care. getting it right should b

but again, from the cbo cost analysis, it will not swap -- sbo's analysis, it will not -- cbo's analysisit will not get rid of the other options. caller: why are americans such wee-wees? in other countries they will do what is necessary to get what they want. we are going to get nothing from these people because our democracy has been nullified by the corporate mentality. guest: i think there is a very lively debate going on in the country. we have seen a lot of vigorous debate at these town hall. i do not think anyone is being sheepish about this. we are going to have a good kick off with around two when the president addresses the joint session of congress. i do not think anyone is coming back, at least on the democratic side, with the notion of going quietly into the night. we are ready to roll on our sleeves and get to work and we are convinced that we can get a bill to the president by the end of the year. host: on the republican line. howard. caller: in the 1970's, probably when you were in high school, legislation was passed and that actually gave the states the right to control t

in the cbo testimony, cbo sat here in the chair you're sitting in and said 8 million illegal alien ynswould have access to the plan you supported and said it would add $239 billion to the deficit. i'm sure you understand those issues. you were there at the speech last week. i'm sure you have ideas of how we can fix that. we've got ideas of how we can fix those problem problems. would you support the fixes that would be necessary for the bill the president said before congress? >> as a recovering legislator, i'm reluctant to sign off on legislative language. i would be maep to look at it to see if i could support it. i support what the president stated going forward that he will sign or not sign a bill. i think you can -- >> right, we presented -- you weren't here i know, but we presented some of those here to fix those two problems. >> if you'd send me that language, i'd be delighted to take by it. >> i'd like a commitment by the acting chair we could get the secretary back before a vote is taken on the house floor. >> gentleman's time is expired. i did give him extra time because of t

>> ed, read the cbo report. it's not me, the cbo says illegal alien also be under the bill, will be able to participate. that's not me. are they all lying to you? >> able to participate? able to participate to get coverage? they won't be turned away but federal dollars will not pay their bills. >> there is nothing in that bill to prevent that. >> president obama may or may not have been lying about illegal immigrants. you know, the language is there. but i tell you one thing he was dishonest about is his proposal is revenue neutral. they are going to have to raise taxes -- >> karen, come on. >> $900 billion worth of saiings, but cutting waste, fraud and abuse from medicare. if it's there on the table, you better get it right now. >> the three of you got to come back for an hour-show. great to have you with us. earlier in the show, i asked you what you thought. will the president's plan to plan preexisting conditions lead to a public option? 81% said yes. and that's where i am. and 19% said no. that's "the ed sho

. >> the cbo's estimate on the med pack idea, tough for the cbo to score that kind of thing, probably wouldn't have a big long-term impact. no i think that ultimately, if you look at the sort of -- the deep bend the curve proposal, you aren't getting there the only proposal there that could bend this cost curve in the current proposal is something like the public option, basically the conservative nightmare and liberal dream come true and public option, everybody rushes into the public option, then you could imagine basically the bending the cost curve itself. >> competition. yeah. >> all right. >> ross douthat with the new york times. as always, we appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. >>> coming up, imagine being a medical student during the health air care debate. my sister is one how much is the debate affecting the future of some doctors? more ahead in this tape from the times.com. >>> later will nasa be able to bring the space shuttle home today? more ahead. this is the "new york times" special edition, only on msnbc. ♪ ♪ i'm cool like that, i'm cool like that ♪ ♪ i'm cool lik

that agency ordered humana to cease and desist calling the mailer misleading and confusing, but the cboector backed up humana's claims on tuesday selling the senate finance committee that its plan to cut 125 billion dollars from medicare advantage will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 billion people losing this coverage. senior editorial page writer joins the panel. okay, dan, so what's max baucus' political game here? >> his political game is to cram down obama-care. what this reflects, i think, is the fact that this initiative, this huge, you know, when it began it was going to be a big entitlement that presumably the american people really needed. medicare for all. it has so disintegrated over the process that we've reached the point where senator baucus now feels compelled to basically threaten and intimidate one of the participants in the bill. they have lost so much political legitimacy around this bill, that the only way they're going to get it passed is by doing this sort of thing or as we know that 51 vote reconciliation process that's going to blow up the senate. >> joe,

not surit is gng to pass, because the one thi about the baucus bilis that it host in the sense thathe cbo has said it is revenue- neutral, which means that it shows how expsive it is. is going to cost middle-clas people, it is goingto cost of e young, it is going ost huge amountsf subsidies, and all the taxes that areoing to be iosed on the iurance companies will be passed on in hier premiums. at is what youhave all the sqwking on the left an the right. finay, the costs areut there, and they are huge. there is one thing it does not do, create cpetition, evan. there are these regional cooperatives and it is a public option. you have a huge amount of concentrati in the industry. >> the has been some talk om senatoron wyden out creating competition. i wish that wod find its way into the fin bill. it does not sounlike it wi. onthing that has cracterized th whole tng is a complete lack of honest aut cost in thsense that people will pay more about something. thepolitics has been amazing, om the presidentn down, about just not ever addresng the elepha in the roomthat you cann have meaniful healt

sure it will pass because the one thing about the baucus bill is it is honest in the sense that the cboit will be neutral which shows how expensive it is. it or cost middle-class people. it will cost the young people. it will cost huge amounts of subsidies. all the taxes are born to be imposed on the insurance companies and be passed on to our premiums. that is what is happening on the left in the red. finally, the calls are out there, and they are huge. >> but they say will create competition. there are regional cooperatives in place of the public option. there's still a huge concentration in the industry. >> yes, there has been some talk from senator wyden and others about creating competition. i wish that would find its way into the final bill. there is a complete lack of honesty about cost. they are either going to have to pay more or did some. it is amazing about not ever addressing this. you cannot have meaningful health reform without somebody giving of something or paying more. now they are saying, oh, my god 1. >> but you'll be paying more without anything happening. >> let's g

. >> do we have any more information overnight, cbo scoring of amendments that are pending? did we get any report overnight? >> i don't think -- nothing we want to discuss publicly. >> aides say he was joking. no cost analysis released. lawmakers killed an amendment by nelson aimed the at getting $100 billion from the drug industry to help low income seniors. democrats warned it would break a deal the white house made last year with drug companies to protect industry revenues in exchange for supporting reform. >> if this amendment is adopted the unattended consequences this may well undermine our ability to pass comprehensive health care reform in this congress. >> virtually every g.o.p. amendment has been defeated, including one putting into law, the president's pledge that no one will be forced to change coverage. >> insures americans can keep the coverage they have. this is one of the major points that the president has made, over and over and over. i think we ought to at least try to help live up to that, if we can. >> democrats were unanimous and killed it. >> lawmakers

cbo has not scored that. in the absce of that, how can you pass a bill? >> first all, you are not passin it, you e getting it out of committee, and there i anoer bill. theyappen at this for mons and monthsnd it is about time --ait -- got to the end ofhe road i thisommittee and got sothing to the floor. it is not goi to be what passes in e last analys no matter what,nd i have got news for you -- it's something passes, it will not be d the da either. it will change, becausthere will be mistakes. but to act li this is more monethan we spent on iraq -- is bill would not beore money an we spend every year on iraq. >> some of the senators e just getting their first cracat this bill could only six of them have been workinweeks and onths on this. now u have people lik rockefeller getting an opportunityo offer his own amendments, and at is happening on the other sid too. it is part of thprocess. >> but it is ue that this has been a debate that iseen on for 10 years. this is not a debate that started last week. >> this is somethi we have been over before >> but the

cbo has not scored them. in the absence of that, how can you pass a bill? >> first of all, you are not passing it, you are getting it out of committee, and there is another bill. they have been at it for months and months, and it is about time -- wait -- they got to the end of the road on this committee and got something to the floor. it will not be what passes in the last analysis no matter what, and if something passes, it will not be the end of the day, either. will change, because there will be mistakes. but to act as if this is more money than we spend on iraq -- this bill would not be more money than we spend every year on iraq. >> some of the senators are just getting their first crack at this bill. only six of them have been working weeks and months on this. now you have people like rockefeller getting the opportunity to really offer their own amendments, and that is happening on the other side, too. as part of the process. >> but it is true that this is a debate we been on for 10 years, not a debate that started last week. >> this is something we h

cbo has not scored tt. in thebsence of that, how can you pass a bill? >> first of all, you are not paing it, u are getting it out of commite, and the is nother bill. ey happen at this foronths and mohs and it is about time -- wait -- got to the end of the ro in this committee and got something to the floor it is noing to be what passesn the last alysis no matt wt, and i have got news for you -- it' something passes, it will t be and the day, either. it will chan, beuse there wi be mistake but to actlike this is more ney than we spent on iraq -- this bill would not be more moy than we spend every year on iraq. >> some of the senats are just getting their first ack at th bill could only six of them have been woing weeks and months on this. w you have peopleike rockefeller getting an opportunity to offer his own amendments, d that is happening on the otride, to it is part othe process. >> but its true that this has been a debate that is bn on for 10 years. this is not a debate that started last week. >> this is something we have been over before. >> but th

democrats are withholding publication of that, as well as the cbo scores of what the price tag is.just a few minutes ago, kent conrad asked the finance committee chair max baucus, if they got any number of overnight. he said yes, but nothing we wanted to discuss in public. kent conrad said, was afraid of that. megyn: wow. just one of the reasons why people are paying so close attention to this. thank you, carl cameron. bill: i have been telling you for months, if you are having a hard time following a sleep at night, just start reading one of these bills. megyn: i start reading these books on motherhood and i start to feel overwhelmed and under skilled and i cannot sleep at all. bill: do not blame everything on doug either. republicans launching new threats, saying that democrats are telling medical companies not to tell their customers what is really in their medicare plan. republicans say this is simply democrats trying to silence any questions about health care overhaul. >> this is, quite frankly, -- it smells like tough, hard ball chicago politics. shut up, the government says,

the cbo stated this will add $220 billion out to the federal deficit over the next ten years.in that's probably a low ball estimate. he did not answer how to pay for this. >> have you followed this whole issue of the insurance? do you think obama's speaking with a forked tongue, that he goes in both directions? >> i don't think any more than any other politician to sell a program. shall we say he emphasizes what he thinks is persuasive. one thing that's flawed is when he talks about it being revenue neutral. we've got to cut the costs of our health care program because it's destroying the fiscal health of this country. as monika says, nobody knows how big the costs are gonna be. we're in an era of genetics and, you know, neurology and whole series of advanced medicine. it's a huge addition. >> what's the point? >> the point is we've got to find out what this is gonna do to the cost structure. >> the cost, the cost. >> it will dry the economy of this country. >> are you not in favor of the advances being made? >> i'm totally in favor. >> let me give you an example. legal costs.