frontline and the center for public integrity have spent the past year investigating the business of medicaid dentistry and the new corporate model for treating america's poor kids. >> this is all billings from medicaid. >> o'brien: we were able to obtain and analyze medicaid data from two states: virginia and texas. we found that on average, kool smiles used crowns more frequently than other providers on children eight and under. in texas, half of all the restorative care on kids eight and under, stainless-steel crowns, 50% more than the state average. virginia, 50% more crowns than average. that's a big difference than other medicaid providers. why? >> our focus is looking at each and every child and looking at where their decay is, what their risk for getting cavities. >> o'brien: it's not because the crown pays more? >> the focus on each and every child we see is to restore that child to a state of good oral health. >> o'brien: then how do you explain that discrepancy, that difference? >> all i can tell you is what we do. i can't tell you what someone else does. >> o'brien: kool s

. >> read stories from our partner, the center for public integrity. >> it's just not a simple matter. >> more about why it's so difficult to get quality dental care. >> about 30 minutes later, the crown falls out again. >> removal of many more teeth than the dentist had initially recommended. >> plus, watch the full progrm again online and follow frontline on facebook and twter, or share your reaction at pbs.org/frontline. >> frontline is made possible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. and by the corporation for public broadcasting. major funding is provided by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. and by reva and david logan, committed to investigative journalism as the guardian of the public interest. additional funding is provided by the park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critil issues. and by tfrontline journalism fund, supporting investigative reporting and enterprise journalism. captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> fo

i'm joined by wendell potter and vice president of cigna, now with the center for public integrity and author of the book "deadly spin." good to have you with us tonight. those really are the three basic choices that are available here to the court. if the court strikes down the individual mandate, but not the requirement on pre-existing their friends in congress and the administration to gut the rest of the bill. people who need coverage, and that will mean the premiums will go up for the rest of us. the insurance industry has a campaign already ready to go in case the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional to persuade all of us and lawmakers it can't work. >> they have also spent a ton of money telling the american people it's a lousy law, and that's had an effect on many circles. what is the best possible outcome as you see it? >> for the whole law to be upheld. even if it is upheld, we know the opponents of reform will still spend an enormous amount of money to weaken the law, to get the consumer protections stripped out, but the best case scenario for consumers, for avera

in philadelphia, wendell potter, a senior analyst on healthcare at the center for public integrity.is author of, "deadly spin: an insurance company insider speaks out on how corporate pr is killing health care and deceiving americans." in washington, d.c., jodi jacobson is with us, editor in chief of r.h. reality check, a website dedicated to covering reproductive healthcare. let's start with dr. oliver fein. the significance of the supreme court up holding what is known as obamacare? >> from our point of view, the question is, how is this going to affect the patients? we think there are three important principles -- access to care, cost of care, and quality. when this lot is to the issue of access is only partial in terms of guaranteeing access. 26 million people are going to be left uninsured according to the congressional budget office when the law is fully enacted. yes, there is an expansion of medicaid, but as we know, the supreme court curtailed some of the oomph behind that so there are some states that probably will not go ahead and make medicaid available to people at 133%

of 665 randomly selected citizens in mid april by the stinson center, the program for public consultation and the center 'áj0@6cj% integrity7% of republicans and 90% of democrats want defense spending cut by an average of 18%. defense cuts proposed by the administration would cut military spending by about 6%. here to discuss the findings are matthew leatherman of the stinson center and steech paul of the program for consultation. gentlemen, welcome to the program. matt, let me start with you. different than the one that is have come before it and what are the major takeaways? >> there's a major difference between this survey and the one that is come before it. this survey looks at how the defense budget is actually built. we aggregate the budget into ground forces, air forces, navel forces, much in the same way the pentagon engages the budget. it's actually the military services that are building it, that's why you see such ut:h0@6cj% going back for 40-plus years. it varies within 1.5% traditionally. we look at people to look at it in that same lens. we hope by doing so the results will be more applicable to a heated defe

for his generous support of our center. the four foundation for its general support of all of our activities and particularly also today's conference. we are grateful. the public welfare foundation is supporting our conviction integrity project and the manhattan's integrity office. i'd like to thank the former executive director. my assistant, laura who has worked tirelessly to get this entire event running and running smoothly. i owe a huge debt of gratitude to and thep presenters. cspan is here. i wanted to tell you that so you can be excited by it, but also if you choose to ask a question, you are thereby con senting to have cspan air you on television asking you that question. you are aware of that and decide if that affects your ability or desire to answer a question. while i agree that very tragic i vent has been a wake up call in terms of talking about race and criminal justice, i have to say it's a bigger mystery to me why we weren't already galvanized to talk about those issues even before that happened. i think you had an interest in it that pre-dated the issue. the reason i think it's important to think about it in a much broader scale than that one innocent is just the statistics alone should really call

for his support of our center. the ford foundation also for its generous support of our activities in particular today's conference. we are grateful. the public welfare foundation is supporting our conviction integrity project and so we think them and also the manhattan district attorney's office for partnering with us on that. i would like to thank the former executive director of the center who is now in private practice but who was instrumental in planning today's events and invited all of these great panelists that you'll be seeing today. my assistant, laura, who has worked tirelessly to get this entire event running and running smoothly. i owe a huge debt of gratitude to and distinguished group of panelists and presenters, i thank you all so much for the time that you have devoted to give today to this effort and all of you for coming. so c-span is here. i want to tell you that so you can be excited by it but if you choose to ask a question you are thereby consenting to have c-span air you on television asking that question so you are aware of that. you can decide if that's affects your ability or desire to ask that question. in terms of today's events, i have had several people say to me recen

public integrity. npr, i think he gave a lot of money to. what about media matters, is he funneling monies through the groups? what about the center forprogress? what about the groups that are out there trying to silence conservative speech -- can we directly tie him to those? >> tens of millions to all of these groups, media matters got another $1 million from him. this is part of a soros machine. you wonder where the far-left gets all of its money. you are looking at it. there are others. but you mentioned some people. you mentioned boone pickens, foster freeze, the koch brothers, harold simmons. kigive you a half dozen more conservative donors, put them all together and they don't equal george soros. >> sean: all right -- [overlapping dialogue] >> sean: he's trying to influence. he has a radical left agenda. go ahead. >> 29 network stories, news stories in five years on him. not one having to do with his money. >> sean: thanks for being with us. when we come back, some of the big labor organizations in wisconsin are furious at the president. wait until you hear the tape we found of president obama, making promises to big labor that