we look the one as are the medicaid expansion in 2010. -- look at one that had the medicaid expansion in 2010. >> so, the $500 billion includes the assumption that at some time the federal cost is lower because of shifting the cost to states? >> we highlighted in the letter that one of the key issues that could make the cost change was how much the burden would be for the state. >> i'm trying to understand, is the five and $100 billion simply the federal share of medicaid costs for 10 years? then you have anoth-- the 500 b. >> we did report the federal government cost. >> 500 billion over 10 years? >> correct. there's a broad range of possibilities. one should not think that is associated with the standard 57%. most of the expansions in medicaid that we have seen from different committees, the ones we used in estimating the number, had the federal government paying a larger share than the usual 57%. in some cases, 100% of the cost for some amount of time. >> do you have the ability to estimate what the cost will be to states over the next 10 years in the specific proposal and medicaid

another one-third of people without insurance are eligible for medicaid under the medicaid expansion but would not take that coverage. we see that today. a good number of people who are eligible for medicaid are not enrolled. they have the opportunity to go into medicaid if they end up incurring large medical expenses. many are people who have not been to a doctor or hospital recently. they have not needed insurance coverage and is there if they need. one might think about those people in the current world and in the world under your set of reforms as having the opportunity to get insurance when it is necessary. the remaining people who would not have insurance are those for whom is still expensive for do not follow the mandate despite the risk it will get caught and face some penalties. not everyone does follow the rules even when there is a cost to get caught breaking the rules. you are right. the net change we estimate close to zero. that is the combination of a number of significant flows of people as was the case for the first estimate we did for this committee several weeks ago

another one-third of people without insurance are eligible for medicaid under the medicaid expansion but would not take that coverage. we see that today. a good number of people who are eligible for medicaid are not enrolled. they have the opportunity to go into medicaid if they end up incurring large medical expenses. many are people who have not been to a doctor or hospital recently. they have not needed insurance coverage and is there if they need. one might think about those people in the current world and in the world under your set of reforms as having the opportunity to get insurance when it is necessary. the remaining people who would not have insurance are those for whom is still expensive for do not follow the mandate despite the risk it will get caught and face some penalties. not everyone does follow the rules even when there is a cost to get caught breaking the rules. you are right. the net change we estimate close to zero. that is the combination of a number of significant flows of people as was the case for the first estimate we did for this committee several weeks ago

medicaid, look, they're talking about medicaid expansion. if we go with either of the house bill or the health committee and the senate's bill, my gosh, you're talking about moving all kinds of people into medicaid which would destroy the private competitive market, and not only that, but in the end you wouldn't be able to cover the 47 million people they claim have to be covered. the fact of the matter is that there would be about 33 million not covered if you take the health committee plan without moving them into medicaid. if you move them into medicaid, you'd still have 15 to 20 million people who would not be covered. you know, to be honest with you, we need to work in a bipartisan way. this is one-sixth of the american economy and all we're hearing from the government is more taxes, more government, more spending, and more budgetary deficits. that's why when the budget committee chairman, doug elmendorf, who was appointed by democrats and who is a terrific guy, when he came out and said, look, all you're going to do is add more to the d

then you have to include the cost of medicaid expansion which takes the cost of this bill well over $1 trillion and puts on the state and unfunded mandate of close to half a trillion dollars and those are big numbers and they don't meet the test that the president set out in my opinion. so i think it's important to make that clear. in the area of the class act, the cbo has said this is insolvent in its present form. we know it's insolvent in its present form. the fact that we're working with a ten-year window allows the score to represent a 50 million -- billion dollar plus window. we know when you get outside the ten-year window and people take advantage of the long-term care coverage that you immediately flip and you end up in a insolvency situation which represents by outside calculations $2 trillion. cbo's calculation may be less than that. they didn't give us a 75-year number, but we know it's big even on the cbo numbers because cbo said for this thing to be solvent you have to start with a premium of $85, not $65 and then it would have to be adjusted upward. the $2 trillion numb

there is something wrong here, i think according to governor barbara medicaid expansion to 150 percentof the federal poverty level would cost mississippi an additional 330 million per. would at least three and a thousand people to their medicaid rolls. they confirmed that also stated these numbers do not take in consideration the crowd out associated with expansion and what is crowd out? employers and individuals dropping private insurance to obtain cheaper government sponsored insurance. it goes on to say just in mississippi in addition is possible in large expansion in the medicaid program requires states to increase their current reimbursement rates for a physician who participation, are those accurate assessments? i think the center brings up an apartment and our hope that we can all support him there a lot of other states have information on but i thought i would be short. i apologize for taking that long >> all those in favor? [roll call] [roll call] will win will [roll call] [roll call] the amendment is defeated. and i also know that our staffs have been working to clear some co

they haven't told you that intend to go with this medicaid expansion that will cost $500 billion more or even more. along with that, would come a substantial increase in medicaid enrollment, amounting to perhaps 15 million to 20 million people. this would have some impact on the number of people obtaining coverage from other sources, including employers. all told, the number of nonelderly people who would maintain uninsured would probably decline to somewhere between 15 million and 20 million. for comparison, c.b.s. analysis found that absent any expansion of medicaid or other change in the legislation, about 33 million people would ultimately remain uninsured if it were to be enacted. i don't care who you are. they're spending too much, taxing too much to get us there and they're writing legislation that is totally partisan that isn't going to work. you know, you're talking about moving people into a government plan like medicaid and medicare. medicare alone it's estimated is 33 trillion dollars in unfunded debt. 33 to 39 trillion dollars. even the president has said these medicaid

now, what they want to do is move to a medicaid expansion where they move more and more people into medicaid when we have a rough time paying for it now, and doctors don't want to take medicaid patients because of the way the federal government is handling it. i have a lot of respect for you, but come on. you know the dog gone federal government is part of the problem here. >> you go back and you tell veterans of this country we should disband the veteran's administration, which is 100% government run. >> i'm not telling them that. >> that's a government run program. do you want to expand medicare? >> there are things medicare can do. to throw over the whole private sector approach that is competitive, to throw it over so we can have a bunch of bureaucrats get in between your doctor and you, it isn't right. >> first of all, nobody is talking about that. >> i'm talking about it. >> we're talking -- nobody is talking about a government-run health care system. >> sure, they are. >> no, they're not. they're talking about a public -- >> what do you call the public plan? >> a public option that wi

of course, they're trying to do a medicaid expansion that literally would transfer somewhere near 119 million people from private insurance into medicaid. and this is the government that now has medicare. why would we do that? i want to pay a tribute to max baucus, the chairman of the committee. he's working very hard in trying to come up with a bipartisan bill, but i thought it was the honorable thing to do since i can't agree with some of these provisions, you know, to not be part of it. >> and if your understanding that those provisions will definitely be whatever comes out of senate finance? >> well, i believe they will. those provisions are big provisions in both the house bill and the senate health bill. and those are very, very partisan bills that have been done for the purpose of, i think, putting the crunch on senator baucus and members of the -- bipartisan members of the finance committee. and, frankly, i'd be very surprised if those three provisions aren't major parts of health care. which means that we're going to have federal government control of health care in this coun

number three, they want to bring people, more and more people into medicaid with a full medicaid expansion and the states are up in arms about that, because they know they'll ultimately inherit all the costs on medicaid and they can't afford it. >> senator, we've got dueling blogs from budget experts over the weekend. you had a saturday morning post from doug elmendorf at the congressional budget office saying that the new plan coming out of the white house and some of the other blue dogs which would allegedly reduce medicare payments would only save $2 billion over ten years. that's the independent board proposal. then you had a response from peter orszag, who used to head the congressional budget office, and knows most of the economists, probably hired most of those economists, saying that they were looking at the wrong data and basically saying, as a former cbo director, i can attest that cbo sometimes accused of a bias towards exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. well, perhaps your budget saving is from where you sit, but orszag very strongly objects to what the cbo is sayin

that's why we believe that they're going to have to scale back the proposed spending such as the medicaid expansionor the subsidies within the insurance exchange to get the costs down so that the financing actually meets the amount that's being spent. >> so let's talk about the investing side of this 37 based on all of the politicking out there, what should i be thinking from an investment standpoint? how is my money going to be treated best in an environment where we know we're facing this enormous expense and we know that the president is adamant in terms of getting this done immediately? >> well, we think there's going to be a deal. it's a question of how it's going to be structured. the hospitals are trying to get it structured so it's not -- the cuts are not detrimental to them. but i would even add that these health care costs always exceed what the government initially forecast. and i think that's going to raise some issues in the debt market when the spending starts exceeding the amount of revenue and cuts that are coming in. >> what do you think, andrew? >> well, i would just say on the me

"such an expansion could be an amount that could range from $500 billion over 10 years. along with that would come a substantial increase in medicaidt, amounting to perhaps 15 million or 20 million people. such an expansion of medicaid would also have some impact on the number of people who obtain coverage from other sources, including employers. all told, the number of people who would remain uninsured would probably decline to somewhere between 15,000,020 million, but for comparison, the cbo analysis of the health committee report found that absent any expansion of medicaid, or other change in the legislation, about 33 million people would remain bolten and the uninsured if it were to be enacted" -- between 15 million and20 millionaand 20. if they expand medicaid, many of theseç people -- many of these people are going to be 15 million or 20 million people. there are people who have private health insurance now, and they will be pushed into medicare. in other words, the government plan. greta: where do weç get this money? i am trying to figure out. whether it does what it says it is supposed to, and then there is how we would p

another one-third of people without insurance are eligible for medicaid under the medicaid expansion take that coverage. we see that today. a good number of people who are eligible for medicaid are not enrolled. they have the opportunity to go into medicaid if they end up incurring large medical expenses. many are people who have not been to a doctor or hospital recently. they have not needed insurance coverage and is there if they need. one might think about those people in the current world and in the world under your set of reforms as having the opportunity to get insurance when it is necessary. the remaining people who would not have insurance are those for whom is still expensive for do not follow the mandate despite the risk it will get caught and face some penalties. not everyone does follow the rules even when there is a cost to get caught breaking the rules. you are right. the net change we estimate close to zero. that is the combination of a number of significant flows of people as was the case for the first estimate we did for this committee several weeks ago when we explai

they want to go with the medicaid expansion that will cost $500 billion more or even more than that. along with that increase in federal spending would come a substantial increase in medicaid enrollment. such an expansion of medicaid would also have some impact on the number of people paying coverage from other sources, including employers. all told, the number of undulate -- of on elderly people who remain uninsured would decline by about 50 million to 20 million. -- by about 15 million to 20 million. absent any expansion of medicaid, about 33 million people would remain uninsured if it were to be enacted. i do not care who you are, but you have to realize that they're spending too much. they are taxing too much to get us there. and they are writing legislation that is totally partisan that is not going to work to. -- not going to work. you're talking about moving people into a government plan like medicaid or medicare. medicaid alone is estimated at $33 trillion in unfunded debt. it is $33 trillion to $39 trillion. even the president said that medicaid, medicare, and social security

"such an expansion could be an amount that could range from $500 billion over 10 years. along with that would come a substantial increase in medicaid amounting to perhaps 15 million or 20 million people. such an expansion of medicaid would also have some impact on the number of people who obtain coverage from other sources, including employers. all told, the number of people who would remain uninsured would probably decline to somewhere between 15,000,020 million, but for comparison, the cbo analysis of the health committee report found that absent any expansion of medicaid, or other change in the legislation, about 33 million people would remain bolten and the uninsured if it were to be enacted" -- between 15 million and20 millionaand 20. if they expand medicaid, many of theseç people -- many of these people are going to be 15 million or 20 million people. there are people who have private health insurance now, and they will be pushed into medicare. in other words, the government plan. greta: where do weç get this money? i am trying to figure out. whether it does what it says it is supposed to, and then there is how we would pay

children, in my judgment, i think the evidence shows this, are better protected under medicaid so i can support an expansion of medicaid just based upon that. even though you might point to

. >> when they tell us that this cost $610 billion and does not account for the medicaid expansion, which may be another 500 or $600 billion -- the cost of this is over one trillion dollars and there is no number for the 54 and the new initiative programs because they cannot get a score. >> this does not score of us in the mandatory scoring. >> the answer is -- if this was funded and one presumes there would be funded, otherwise why would they be put in? if they will not be funded than it makes no sense to put them in. this is an area where we do not know how much cost will be generated until the funding. >> those decisions are in the hands of the appropriations committee. >> we know that most people do not of the rise of program unless they expect to get appropriation. i would say that this is a flat of concern, on a very expensive bill, that there are costs the have not been accounted for yet. >> i might ask the author, what you are trying to do is promote the co location in primary health care, of mental health, and physical health. and this is the right way to go. so many times in my

seco would be medicaid and the expansion of medicaid and at the retion of goernors will b to ditionaltate requiremts. >> rerter: one of three republicans in the bi-partis talks, maine's ompia snowe, saidhe committee wants to make it adopts a bill thawill make sense the average american. >> what's importa for us is to preed on a methodical basis every day in each piece of this overhaul to ensure that theroposals willork, nefits and how they wi aect those who have health insurance, those who don't. >> rorter: at two events outside of washington tay, president oba fine tuned his tch for reform, at a time wh as polls shows sport for his ideaslipping. he spoke first at a town halin raleigh, northarolina. >> at we need, and what we will have when we pasthese reforms, a health insurance consumer protections tmake surehat those who have surance are treated fairly d inrance companies are held accountable. >> reporter: the preside unveiled an 8-pnt plan for achiing his goal. among the pointsinsurers would have o: comply with annual cap on what they charge for outf- pocketxpenses, fully cover ro

then there's another person who's going to be affected by that expansion of medicaid, the government program, and that's the taxpayer. the cost of the expansions that are being discussed when you expand the program to 150% of the federal poverty level and when you, in addition to that to try to attract more doctors and hospitals to serve medicaid patients, you require states to pay more to doctors and more to hospitals than they are today. the numbers are staggering. the congressional budget office has said well, it's a $500 billion figure over ten years or maybe $700 billion if you go to the fourth year and go for ten years after that. or maybe it's more than that depending on the various formulas you come up with. and will we assume all that at the federal level? well, maybe we will to start with. but after a few years it will go back to the states. we say that easily here because we've got a printing press, and we've suddenly gotten used to talking about trillions of dollars. but states can't do that. states don't have printing presses. they have to balance their budgets. and i did

in that announcement, my understanding is that is -- it is potentially a gimmick or (expansion of medicaid to cover tens of millions of people and it is to be paid for by the bill. >> are you asking me whether or not the estimate that came out today is one that is accurately reflecting a complete evaluation of the health care program? >> in the statement i believe -- >> i know what the president said. i am just wondering if -- i think i made is a dealer at argument about -- i think i made a similar argument just a few days ago. that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. let me give you the answer you were looking for it then and now. this is obviously something that was done not by us, but at the congressional budget office. the health committee does not have jurisdiction over a portion of that legislation. that will be dealt with in a finance bill. as to their so-called incomplete analysis, i would point you towards the congressional office. many of these things are demonstrated in the health bill. again, i think the president believes on capitol hill among businesses and among the american

according to governor barber, medicaid expansion to 150% of the federal poverty level would cost mississippi an additional $333 million per year and it would add at least 300,000 people to their medicaid rolls. medicaid analyzed the numbers and confirmed but also stated these numbers do not take in consideration the crowd-out associated with expansion. what is crowd-out. employees -- employers and/or individuals dropping private insurance to obtain cheaper government sponsored insurance. then it goes on to say just in mississippi, in addition it's possible that a large expansion in the medicaid program could require states to increase their current reimbursement rates to ensure sufficient physician participation. are those accurate assessments? well, i think the senator brings up a very important amendment. i would hope that we can all support it. there are a lot of other states i have information on, too. but i said i'd be short. i apologize for taking that long. >> is there any further debate? >> i'm ready to finish. >> are you ready to vote? >> if the distinguished senator is. >> all thos

i know a medicaid expansion will cost several hundred billion additional dollars and will increase thecost of the total bill to well over $1 trillion. we need to be up front about what the bill will truly cost. at the time when california is literally writing ious because they're going bankrupt and states across the country are facing the worst financial crisis in a generation. why are the estimates lower than the numbers we saw? because the bill has a new tact on employers who did not aur health insurance to employees. this will cause employers to reduce the number of employees. most economists agree the effect will fall disproportionately on low income and minority populations. we should be finding new ways. the bill will always reduce the cost estimate by violating one of president obama's campaign pledges from last year. president obama promise that had he would not increase taxes on families who made less than $250,000. but that is what this bill does. it taxes american who is do not have health insurance. under this bill they'll have to pay $36 bill every the next ten years. the

if you look at their medicaid expansion, they will expect the states to put up tens and tens of billionsollars more. this is not the direction the american people what. at the end of the day, finding a way to put these programs on a financially sound basis will probably be the most important thing we can do. >> [inaudible] >> this is not about republicans. this is the american people oppose the opposition that is growing. you see it in the polling. i walked airports. i go to home depot. i have people who stop me nonstop to voice their concerns and their outrage. i spend time traveling around the country. there is a lot about rage out there. >> are you worried there will be a blue dog deal? >> [inaudible] >> do you think the private sector is divided? >> from most of the private sector associations i have talked to in town, they have serious concerns about the house democrats' proposal. most of these people have been involved in conversations with the white house. i think they continue to be in conversations in the white house. we have seen muted opposition from a lot of these groups, bec

there was a strong bipartisan, virtually unanimous concern that the health-care bill and the expansion of medicaid in it will end up being a huge, unfunded mandate for states, that states are going to get stuck with billions and billions and billions of costs to pay for things. and that was not just conservative republicans like me. i believe -- every democrat governor there is very, very worried -- i believe that virtually every democratic governor there is very, very worried. i am also worried about the taxes, and i am worried that they are trying to rush this through congress before the american people know what is in it. now, if the american people really have a chance to understand what is in the energy packages and in the health-care package, i do not believe they have a chance, but i believe the democratic leadership in congress' goal is to do something. neil: are you going to run for president? >> this year or next year, i am focused on electing republican governors. we have two big elections, one in virginia. they will be close. i think any republican who is thinking about or worried abou

if you look at their medicaid expansion, they will expect the states to put up tens and tens of billionsllars more. this is not the direction the american people what. at the end of the day, finding a way to put these programs on a financially sound basis will probably be the most important thing we can do. >> [inaudible] >> this is not about republicans. this is the american people oppose the opposition that is growing. you see it in the polling. i walked airports. i go to home depot. i have people who stop me nonstop to voice their concerns and their outrage. i spend time traveling around the country. there is a lot about rage out there. >> are you worried there will be a blue dog deal? >> [inaudible] >> do you think the private sector is divided? >> from most of the private sector associations i have talked to in town, they have serious concerns about the house democrats' proposal. most of these people have been involved in conversations with the white house. i think they continue to be in conversations in the white house. we have seen muted opposition from a lot of these groups, beca

also proposed expansions for medicare an medicaid. mike rounds, republican governor will be joining us, and jim douglas, republican of vermont. that's all tomorrow tomorrow morning on "washington journal." enjoy the rest of your weekend, have a great week ahead. one more from july 20, 1969, have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> up next, "newsmakers" with arizona democratic congressman mike ross. then we'll show you some of the senate's confirmation hearing of supreme court justice nominee sonia sotomayor. then the national governor's association meeting in mississippi on emergency preparedness. >> joining us on c-span's "newsmakers" program this sunday is mike ross, from arkansas and chair of the task force for blue dog democrats. and anna and david, health care reporters. let me begin with an open-ended question. what would it take for you to support a health care bill as it moves through different committees in the house and on to the sena

however, there is a huge cost for this regarding, it looks like there would be a major expansion of medicaid and that would largely fall under the soldiers of the state. and right now it looks likes program government would take care of it for five years then the governors in all those states would have to worry about it over the weekend down in biloxi they got an earful, democrats and republicans on governor department. not too happy about this. brian: yeah. i mean, they had the governor's meeting and almost no one showed up because these governors are buried in red ink and i can't take the time off to go to a convention. democrats and republicans. governor of vermont republican. governor richardson, ritter of colorado. a democrat in colorado. richardson, of course, a democrat. one thing in common. they all say the responsibility right now in the house plan will fall an their soldiers, they can't afford it they are very concerned. they feel they are going to be saddled with unfunded mandates that are coming their way. this is 17% of the u.s. economy right now. over the next 10 years is goin

medicaid? there was a major expansion in terms of increased reimbursement rates. covering people in many states that are below the 100 percent -- 1% in federal dollars. i want to stress that even though we are having savings for medicare and medicaid, we are improving the program significantly. >> there is conversation among providers in my home state that is not focused on medicare, but on medicaid. it often reimburses -- under reimburses doctors and family care providers. i think that is a huge step forward. having a situation where, if you are an adult or a family under 33% of family, wherever you go, you would have the same benefits if you move across the state line or if you need to travel with your family elsewhere, you would have similar benefits. it would be the portability that is currently not available to all lot of people because the benefits change from state to state. that is a significant step forward. while you are discussing medicaid, i just wanted to share with the committee that my staff has told me that the number of that we have been given by

host: let me get back to health care, it's estimated that an expansion of medicaid could cost $60 billioncould the states make up jlwha is required for the expansion? guest: that dog ain't going to hunt in montana, they proposing that montana will have to pay for that match. medicaid is a sister to this health care, and they are proposing to increase 20% up to 25 to 30% under medicaid, and force the states to pay the match. look, if the federal government is going to create a universal health care system, they have to figure out how that pay for it. you can't just switch to the states. we have to balance budgets here, if we have for example, in montana if it cost $115 million, i have to cut a program someplace else. no more shifting of the liability to the states. congress you have a job to do, get it done. you pay for it and design it. but don't design and make states pay for it. host: governor, we are pleased to have you on c-span, thanks for joining us. guest: good to be back. host: and you can watch the live coverage in biloxi, mississippi, an area was damaged by the hurricane. and t

bill: this health care reform effort is a massive expansion of medicare and medicaid, programs that currently billions of dollars in fraud. what is being done to keep us from being ripped off on a bigger scale? we will check that out. oyoÑÑ megyn: have you ever tried to read a book like you drive? what if you were driving a bus? take a look at this picture, and washington, d.c. metro driver, caught reading behind the wheel. apparently the writer is an editor for "the washington examiner." apparently there were 20 people on board, during rush hour, and it was raining. just a few weeks after nine people were killed in a metro train collision. people should know better than this by now. the punishment for the reading driver? written warning. bill: rush hour, right? maybe he was just sitting there. maybe i am just making excuses for a guy. megyn: sometimes you take a car service in new york, you fill out a form. i always worry because half of the time they are driving in filling out the form. could you do that later? [laughter] i do not mind waiting for a few minutes at the other brand. bill: am

there will be a vast expansion of medicaid if it passes and if that happens, should we not at least ensure that those patients have access to a doctor? one of the ways we can do that is assure that every state will reimburse physicians at a rate that is no less than 75% of their plan rates. those are simple common sense things. we haven't been able to offer those amendments because the committee has been in recess all week. let's get down to business for any legislation that actually works for the american people. >> my colleague from georgia, rep representative nathan deal spoke a second ago about what kind of dog the white house would have ended up with if they had are rushed that through. they would have ended up with a junkyard dog if they had rushed it through, just like on this healthcare situation. we want affordable accessible and universal healthcare, an accessible and universal to everybody. instead, we rush it through and end up with universal nightmare. we can do this right and you heard representative shadegg talk about republican legislation. so much for all this bull about r

>> well, an expansion of medicaid to cover the uninsured. think in virtually all of the plans. but medicare, they are going to have to be savings out of medicare. you know, if you look at what is happening in this country, as you know so well, we're spending twice as much per person as any other country in the world. we're spending one in every six dollars in this economy on health care. and if we stay on the current trend line, we'll spend one in three dollars in this economy on health care. that would truly be a disaster not only for families and businesses, that would be a disaster for the government itself. >> the way you envision out of committee would you say it's deficit neutral? >> absolutely. you know, as chairman of the budget committee, i've insisted throughout that for any plan to have my support, it will have to be paid for fully. and more than that, it will also have to bend the cost curve long-term in the right way. that is it will have to reduce burgeoning costs in health care. any plan that comes out of this discussion will

there will be a vast expansion of medicaid under the democrat'' plan. if that is going to happen, should we not insure that those patients have access to a doctor? we can ensure that every state will reimburse physicians at no less than 75% of the state plan rates. those are simple, common-sense things. we were not allowed to offer those amendments because the committee has been in recess all week. let's open the doors and get down to the business of writing legislation that actually works for the american people. >> i am a member of the energy and commerce committee. my colleague from georgia spoke just a second ago about what kind of dog the white house would have ended up with if they had to rush that through instead of taking months to selectively come up with that portuguese water dog. they would have ended up with a junkyard dog if they had rusted through, just like on this health care situation. we want affordable, accessible, and affordable it is universal health care for everybody. instead, we rush it through an end up with a universal nightmar

however, it is my understanding that it uses a gimmick that says it counts on an expansion of medicaid to cover a huge portion, tens of millions of those people, that is not paid for by the bill. is the question you are asking is whether not the cbo estimates that came out today is one that is accurately reflected of a complete evaluation of our health care bill? >> and the statement -- what i know the president said. -- >> i know the president said. i made a similar argument about a piece of legislation evaluated by the cbo just a few days ago. that seems to a fallen on deaf ears. i will give you what i believe is the answer that you are looking for. this is obviously something that has been done by the congressional budget office. the health committee does not have jurisdiction over the legislation for th. as for the complete analysis, i would point to the congressional budget office. many things that were outlined in the bill -- i think the president believes in capitol hill among businesses and among the american people making progress toward comprehensive health-care reform. >> on

have a very liberal health program and many people will be under their medicare expansion approach and forced to go into medicaidin my opinion, there will be a government plan where the government runs health care. medicare is already 39 trillion dollars in -- $39 trillion in unfunded liabilities. why do we want to hand this over to the government? i tell you, i do not see much hope in getting a bill that the american people can support. one other aspect, there is a provision in the house committee bill called comparative and effectiveness. we tried to make sure that that could only be used for clinical purposes, not for rationing. they shot down every anti- russiaration idea that we had. martha: you feel strongly of this is going to go through anyway. >> actually, i do not. they are going to have a rough time when the american people figure out what they are trying to do. we have at least five republican programs that would do a much better job at a lower cost, while still covering those people who need to be. martha: maybe they will get an earful when they go home to their constituents over the break. thank yo

gentleman from new york are attempting to do, but it does call into question, this would be an expansion of medicaid it would waive certain rules that citizens of the united states. there should be another way to help these folks without in essence, waiving current federal law. we would oppose it on policy grounds. >> gentleman opposes the amendment. >> who seeks recognition? >> mr. hall. >> i yield my time to chairman stearns. >> i yield my time to you if i have the time. >> you have the time. >> i rise in opposition of this. i don't think many people know what payload is, it's a very small country, the country only has about 600 people in it, a huge number of islands that stretch out, supposedly 17 of the terrorists from gitmo, guantanamo bay are going to be sent there. we're going to $200 million so they'll take these terrorists. their all gdp is about $64 million. is a huge surplus. for the united states to say we're going to include in medicaid, to bypass the five-year waiting period, under. personal responsibility and the work reconciliation act, seems a little over the top. i'm not sure we ne

it does call into question this would be an expansion of medicaid. it would also wage certain rules citizens in the united states have to comply with, the five year waiting period and think that this sort. there should be another way to help these folks without an essence is waiting current federal law, and so we would oppose it on policy grounds as well as on procedural grounds. >> the gentleman opposes the amendment. is there for the debate? >> mr. chairman? >> who seeks recognition? mr. hall. >> i yield my time to chairman stearns. >> i will yield to you if i have the time, mr. chairman. >> i rise in opposition to this. i don't think many members know who paygo is in the specific imminent. it is a very small-company, in the capital has about 600 people in it. it's a huge number of islands that stretch of. in fact, supposedly 17 in the tariffs from gitmo to guantanamo bay are going to be sent there. and we're going to give them $200 million so that they will take these terrorists. now, their whole gdp is about $64 million. so that's going to be a h

there will be a vast expansion of medicaid under the democrat'' plan.f that is going to happen, should we not insure that those patients have access to a doctor? we can ensure that every state will reimburse physicians at no less than 75% of the state plan rates. those are simple, common-sense things. we were not allowed to offer those amendments because the committee has been in recess all week. let's open the doors and get down to the business of writing legislation that actually works for the american people. >> i am a member of the energy and commerce committee. my colleague from georgia spoke just a second ago about what kind of dog the white house would have ended up with if they had to rush that through instead of taking months to selectively come up with that portuguese water dog. they would have ended up with a junkyard dog if they had rusted through, just like on this health care situation. we want affordable, accessible, and affordable it is universal health care for everybody. instead, we rush it through an end up with a universal nightmare.

there is going to be a vast expansion of medicaid.hould we not at least ensure that those patients have access to let dr.? one of the ways we can do that is to ensure that every state will reimburse physicians that is no less than 75% of their state plan rates. those are simple, common-sense things. i hope we do have the opportunity to get back and discuss this. better would to be opened the doors and get back to writing legislation. >> doctor bill gingrich. -- dr. phil gingrich. my colleague spoke about what kind of doll the white house could have ended up with if they had rushed that. they would have ended up with a junkyard dog if they have rushed it through. just like this health care situation. we want affordable, accessible, and universal health care. accessible in universal to everyone. instead, we rush it through an end up with universal nightmare. we can do this right. we talk about republican legislation. this iwe have plans and amendmes that representative glenn just held up -- rep blood just held up. -- representative blun

we are being offered an expansion of medicare and expansion of medicaid. we see tremendous problems in both of those programs. mr. speaker, obama care is going to expand those and we will have more fraud, waste and abuse and higher costs because of government intrusion into the health care system. mr. speaker, obama care is going to put the u.s. department of labor statistics into overtime providing more statistics of more job losses, of lower wages, of more people out of work, of higher costs for all goods and services in this country. mr. speaker, they're going to give us data in the future of a poor economy. mr. speaker, stealing our grandchildren's future has to stop. and i hope the american people stand up and say no to the cap and tax or tax and trade bill that's in the senate and obama care. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from

figured if, in five years you shifted back to tennessee, just their share of costs from the expansion of medicaid, paying the doctors and hops more, it would be, the bill for the state of tennessee to pay an increased medicaid cost would be an amount of money that equals a new 10% state income tax. the truth is, for our state and i believe for almost every state, it's an amount of money that nobody has enough taxes to pay. you could run politicians in and out defeat them for raising taxes all day long and they still couldn't come up with ways to pay for it. in other words these bills are based on a premise and assumption that will either bupt the states or if the federal government says we will pay for it all it will add $500 billion or $600 billion to the legislation we are considering. mr. president, we need to think that through. is that really the best way to help people who are low income? i don't think so. i think there are much better ways. the wyden framework is better, rearranging the tax deductions we have for people who have employer -- health insurance from their employers and says ta