subsection c, and individual health insurance, coverage. subsection one.individual health-insurance coverage that is not grandfathered coverage under subsection a aldie offered honor after the first day of y 1. ok, got that? and the second one is separate, it accepted coverage. these are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. nothing in paragraph one should prevent the offering other than to the health insurance exchange of accepted benefits as long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage." update, viewers, have you got that? >> that is going to push more people -- ok, viewers. that is very much the limit to be enrolled. greta: that is what that means? that is what you read into this? >> that is that section. not those particular paragraphs that you read, but that is it. greta: did you understand what i read? >> a little bit of it. you have to put it into the context. greta: ok, let's talk about transparency then, section 133. transparency. this is my favorite section, and you have to understand that

on the subsection hhh in your footnote, it does not exist. see any quote marks? the bill is quoting a hope thet cal subsection that it would add to the existing social security law. good thing do you not have a job where you need to know stuff like this. right? this panel and also quotes jean robinson of "the washington post" who presently will tell us the sentence miss palin chose not to quote from his piece, pair now yeah, if it is all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in mesh a measure to bend the health care costs? reimbursing doctors for the counseling gives them financial incentive to counsel patients to kill themselves. point of fact. end of life directives save money, unquote. newt gingrich said that. point of logic, if your patients kill themselves, you stop making money off them. as promised, "washington post" associate editor, eugene robinson joins us now. good evening. so sarah palin quotes your column. the quote she used citizens are not dilution alto conclude the goal is to conclude end of life spending. if you read t

in dealing with the policy chief rather than having to sit down with the president to on-air out subsection, paragraph five. -- rather than having to sit down with the president to acquire a out that section. -- to iron out that subsection. no one knew the nuances and language like he did. what about the health-care debate in this city? >> i year a lot of democrats say and some commentators that this gives health care a big boost, after having a bad august, it gives it some energy coming into september, but i doubt it. that may be the case. i do not think people are looking to pass a bill that changes their health care, make their health care wars, spends $1 trillion? change as a whole big chunk of the condit -- make their health care worse. changes the whole big chunk of the economy. i do not think at the end of the day members of congress are going to feel comfortable going home to say, "i know the bill was bad, but i voted on it because it had kennedy's name on it." greta: getting 60 votes on any bill, one less person in their corner. >> an interesting point. between now and the election

individual describes subject to the succeeding p provisions of this subsection an individual described in this pair gave is an individual who, a, is not enrolled in coverage described in subparagraph c through f or paragraph 2. i mean, i don't know why they don't read this and just tell us in simple language what they mean. the republicans now say this means members of congress, with existing federal employee coverage, don't have to join the new government-run health plan. i'm sick and tired of it, washington! you want government health? we try it on you first! because some of you guys are old and sickly. let's see if ragging works with you guys. i'm not saying all of this because the republicans are right and democrats are wrong. frankly, i don't trust either side, but remember, what investor warren buffett has said -- don't ever invest in something you don't understand. america, are you really willing to invest your future in a plan you don't understand? use your head. >> she's back! >> she's back! next. finally, good news for people with type 2 diabetes or at risk for diabetes. intr

oh, in the subsection hhh in your footnote, it does not exist. see the quote marks?l is quoting a hypothetical subsection hhh that it would add to the existing social security law. good thing you do not have a job where you need to know stuff like this, right? miss palin also quotes gene robinson of "the washington post," who will presently tell us the sentence miss palin chose not to quote from her piece. and she quotes another writer, quote, if it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to bend the curve on health care costs? palin repeats the writer's suggestion that reimbursing doctors for this counseling gives them financial incentive to counsel patients to kill themselves. point of fact, end-of-life directives save money, end quote. newt gingrich said that. and point of logic, if your patients kill themselves, you stop making money off them. as promised, gene robinson joins us now. good evening, gene. >> evening, keith. >> so sarah palin quotes your column and the quote she used was, citizens are not delusional to co

house resolution 3200 sections 401 subsection 59da proposes a tax on persons without acceptable health care coverage. define acceptable. at second, wouldn't you agree that every american has the right to choose their own coverage based on cost and terms? would you vote for a senate bill that has this same provision? >> the provision cited imposes a 2.5% tax on people who do not have acceptable health care insurance. that is too vague to have my support. today to have my support. who has the next number? 19. 19? yes, sir. >> i want to know why the government feels like they have to buy a car company that makes cars that nobody wants. [applause] >> that is the most succinct question of the day, i want to give you an award. why does the government want to help a car company that makes cars that nobody wants? there is no sensible answer to that as framed. but let me take a look at it. we are trying to get all the people who are employed by the manufacturer to keep a job. we're trying to keep all the people who have supplies to general motors and chrysler in pennsylvania, and there are a lo

controls generally -- how the subsection ends with a proscription for a clause. what give us the authority. and again, if you look through the regulation you'll find that in almost every section. this is guidance to the contracting officer and then the contracting officer needs to find an appropriate clause under which -- >> yeah, but that's not the point. well, the point is you make an assertion that this isn't a hammer. now, if you're going to wait and not -- and you're going to withhold 15% because the deficiencies have not been corrected, that's a sledgehammer. why do you think this isn't effective? that's what i want to know? >> that's guidance that give us no authority -- >> no. i'm not interested in the guidance. def >> if the person chooses to do that why it won't make a difference? >> because i have other contract clauses that provide other direction. >> and 15% withhold is not effective? i know you have other clauses. i'm asking you about this clause. i want to know why it's not effective? >> that gives the aco no contractual authority. it tell us to co

arcane piece of the immigration bill which he'd done with john mccain and he was talking about subsection 16, photograph c. he had a phenomenal memory and intelligence for that kind of stuff, and a guy who grew up in this charismatic family and could have skated on all that, to have discovered this capacity for deal making, that's whing he found himself. >> ifill: ellen fitzpatrick, how about that? did the contrast on the desire or the ability to skate through on charisma and the kennedy name and the nuts and bolts side, which won out most of the time? >> i think the two actually worked together entirely. and what's remarkable about ted kennedy is that for a 50-- almost a 50-year period, a half a century, he provided a very visible reminder of a kind of liberal idealism that first came to the forewith the election of his brother in 1960, and that was kept alive after his brother's assassination, with the candidacy of robert kennedy in 1968, and that ted kennedy himself then carried through in the ensuing years. there's a kind of continuity to the story, and it's one that is intertwined wi

he is to be congratulated for getting his leadership, the glimpse into a small subsection of arabs and muslims who hope for the future lies. the united states and the rest of the world have a real stake in helping create the conditions that will allow such brave individuals take root and the lead in helping build a better middle east. thank you. >> thank you for those comments. next we will hear from laith. >> i very much enjoyed reading the book. you are an excellent storyteller and i think it is very brave of you to try to explain to the readers a very complex situation through the voices and the narratives of seven people and i think you did an excellent job and introducing the complex issues i am not very sure if we have any clear answer where the region is going. but certainly i think the seven people as i read, and i know all of them, i think they all have had one encounter or another with the nationalndowment for democracy and of course i know the topics in the region and i read with most interest and i learned a lot even about iraq and through reading the narrative, so i think

related internal controls, generally, how the subsection ends is with the prescription for a clause. that's what gives us the authority and again, as you look through the regulation you will find that in almost every section. this is guidance to the contracting officer and then the contracting officer needs to find an appropriate clause under which -- >> that's not the point. the point is you make an assertion that this isn't a hammer. if you're going to wait and you're going to withhold 15% because the deficiencies have not been corrected, that's a sledgehammer. why do you think this isn't effective? that's what i want to know. >> that is -- again, that's guidance that gives us no authority -- >> no, i'm not interested in the guidance. tell me why it's not effective. why if the person chooses to do that why it won't make a difference. >> because i have other contract clauses that provide other direction, and -- >> 15% withhold is not an effective -- i know you have other clauses. i'm asking about this clause. >> that's not a clause. that's regulatory guidance. >> good. this regulato

play if it were a stafford act matter fema has a huge coordinating role, but when you get into subsections of with that matter whole cabinet agencies that is where you get into who should be stepping up to do something. ultimately of course, if you get an up bureaucracy you go to the man in the white house and he will straighten out. we would like to have a someone at stafford act on out depending upon one's your notions of conscience but what is happening here, who the public will have confidence in then let others come into play there often very critical supportive roles, but somebody needs to step up and what happened in the swine flu episode is somebody stood up because the white house had a good event to say swine flu we have no vaccine. that we have potential panic. several agencies could be involved. two her credit the secretary stood up and restored, it is because she was one of the two cabinet officers who had been appointed, but to show you how sanguine in the administration was as it saw how the matter was developing and realize that notwithstanding the enormous credibility the

in this contract, subsection e, it talks about that.ant the family to help them secure the ancillary rights to michael jackson's image, his pictures, his name. i'm not sure the estate is going to allow that. >> diane dimond, thanks so much for g etting up to searly this g.mo inwe appreciate it. >> just for you. >> be sure to watch "entertainment tonight" for more jackson coverage and for more of diane's reports right here on cbs. >>> you know who's outside? >> i think lonnie's outside. >> hey, guys, good morning to you. we've got a story for you. there's a couple here from redland, california. i understand it was your birthday -- first of all, what's your name? >> bonnie. >> and this is harry. it was your birthday, what, just yesterday? >> yesterday, the 13th. >> but on the birthday cake, i understand harry didn't write "happy birthday." >> he said, will you marry me? >> congratulations to you. best of luck. lots of years of happiness. >> neighbor. i fell in love with my neighbor. >> they started out as neighbors. they're going to be a

a glance into a small subsection of those arabs and muslims who hope for the future lives.he united states and the rest of the world have a real stake in helping create the conditions that will allow such brave individuals and groups to take the lead in helping build a better middle east. thank you. >> thank you for the comment. next we will hear from laith kubba. >> thank you, mark. well, i very much enjoyed josh, reading the book, and you are an excellent storyteller. and i think it's very brave of you to try to explain to readers a very complex situation through the voices and the narratives of seven people. and i think you did an excellent job in introducing the complex issues. i am not very sure if we have any clear answers to how the region is going. but certainly i think seven people, and i know all of them, i think i'll accept one have had one encounter or the other of international democracy. and of course, i know the topics in the regions, and i read with most interest and i learned a lot even about iraq and about through reading the narrative. so i think it is ex

craigslist on the classified as a new type in obama or reform in most major metropolitan areas under the subsection you will find the csiu and you will find people being paid $16 per hour to go to these town hall meetings. i don't know if anyone on the right is being paid to show up in this town hall meetings but i guess that you have to be financed by george soros to be a real act of desperation host: host: this caller asks for one republican who is promoting fairness guest: \ guest: many people have suggested and john kerry said he would like to see it come back in place. the democrats are not legislating desperate they are appointed people to the fcc, the body that impose the fairness doctrine that will start to do this again. we're starting to see it, setting local standards and community panels that the local radio stations and tv stations have to be responsible to. this is a way to bring pressure to bear on local media outlets and national media outlets to get them to not air views that liberal activists don't like. host: good morning. caller: when i heard nancy pelosi call people nazis -- i

house resolution 3200 sections 401 subsection 59da proposes a tax on persons without acceptable health care coverage. define acceptable. at second, wouldn't you agree that every american has the right to choose their own coverage based on cost and terms? would you vote for a senate bill that has this same provision? >> the provision cited imposes a 2.5% tax on people who do not have acceptable health care insurance. that is too vague to have my support. today to have my support. who has the next number? 19. 19? yes, sir. >> i want to know why the government feels like they have to buy a car company that makes cars that nobody wants. [applause] >> that is the most succinct question of the day, i want to give you an award. why does the government want to help a car company that makes cars that nobody wants? there is no sensible answer to that as framed. but let me take a look at it. we are trying to get all the people who are employed by the manufacturer to keep a job. we're trying to keep all the people who have supplies to general motors and chrysler in pennsylvania, and there are a lo

if you look at subsection four of the third chapter index, what you really see is what we're trying too is divide the mechanism that will slow ly rei in the costs -- >> it doesn't work. see, that's the problem. >> always had end-of-life discussions. this is nothing new. >> hey, by the way, bill karins, our meteorologist, is going to be calling you after this. what else? it. >> we heard about these dnc counter rallies. >> it doesn't work, though. this stuff does not work. >> no one is going to go to that website who isn't already onboard with the president's plan, but that can be helpful to some people at dinner table conversations trying to refute -- >> maybe it will help them move the upper west side over to the obama camp. >> it could help. >> the idea also is to goat people wget people who are amenable to this. we used to have two sides of it out there circulating, the other side soaking up -- >> i also hear they're doing counter rallies. >> yes, i was looking to hit a counter rally this week. anywhere i can do this, mike? >> this is for joe. he's going to love this. last week the d

really is striking that with all of the partisanship and to look again at the readers' comments that subsection of the comments you see the villains, the hostility, some hatred, strong disagreement, that at the same time perhaps this all has built up since the early 90's and it was left over from chappaquiddick but specially built of he has been more effective than ever dealing with people in the senate. >> he's very well respected and hard work is respected by everybody in the senate the matter who it is. hillary clinton had not iues of personal behavior but certainly some of the same issues kennedy had people woering if she was treating her name and so forth a she hunkered down and was respected for her hard work but he knows how to please people. we have anecdote tashi was trying to negotiate on an immigration bill and brooks was this kind of cigar smoking, he really loved his cigars so kennedy trooped over to his office and brought a manila envelope and had good cigars but nobody els could see was in them and he opened the manila envelopeo brookcould see them and shot it and they sat down a

again, dcma's audit -- they're doing it, i guess, for internal control purposes for that 242.75 subsectione far. to talk about the purchasing, if i may -- [inaudible] >> okay. dcma, okay, issued a report on june 10th that basically looked at the purchase orders awarded basically during calendar year '07. in that report, we had 13 recommendations. those recommendations essentially mirror those in the 2009 dcaa audit report that has been referred to. now, dcaa has them grouped in three but if you go through specifically what they are, they're essentially the same. the thing is that the 2009 dcaa audit was based upon data for calendar year '07. whereas, our 2009 cpsr that we recently completed -- i believe that's july, july 10th -- we looked at 200 purchase orders from july '08 to april '09. a time period that affordeded kbr the opportunity to make the corrective actions. so again, dcaa -- i know they're currently always doing audits of subcontracts on all the task orders so that may be calling their opinion but the 2009 audit again was simply an audit that was delayed for release. so i don't

but when you get into subsections are for that matter whole cabinet agencies, that is when you get into should be stepping up to do something. ultimately of course, if you get enough confusion in the bureaucracy, you go up to the man in the white house and he will straighten it out. we like to have it somewhere, stafford act or not, depending upon going to your notion, function of what is happening here, who the public will have confidence in, then let others come into play, they are very often very critical supportive roles. but somebody needs to step up. and what happened with the swine flu episode, the white house had the good sense to say, you know, swine flu, we have no vaccine. we have potential panic. several agencies could be involved. to her credit, the secretary stood up and restored confidence because she was one of the few cabinet officers who had been appointed. but to show you how sang won the administration was, as it saw the matter was developing and realized that not withstanding the enormous credibility of the secretary, had to have someone understand about to stand up