tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN June 12, 2010 10:00am-2:00pm EDT
field, it takes a a little patience to watch the game a couple of times and figure out what is going on. it is more complicated than it seems. host: you can follow what is going on on the "new republic" website. franklin foer, thank you. guest: thank you. host: tomorrow, we will talk about president obama's relationship with the progressive liberal wings of the democratic power -- party. we will also learn about the federal government's ability to protect pensions with he forrer director of the pension benefit guaranty association. that is tomorrow, on "washington journal."
>> 23 years ago president reagan spoke those words at the brandenburg gate in berlin. watch the entire speech today on "american history tv" on c-span 3. on thursday, bp ceo tony hayward is going to be questioned by members of the house energy subcommittee on oversight investigation bp -- on bp's world. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and radio. now discussion on the progressive movement's role in the house and senate election. also a look at the actions taken by the obama administration concerning the we kill remarks from carry-on huffington -- we hear remarks from arianna huffington and from moveon.org. this is hosted by the campaign
for america park's future. -- america's future. [applause] >> one way facing name cards. i direct the campaign for america parks the future. i welcome you to washington. this has been a city of the big storms lately. i'm not talking about the weather. we need you to turn of the heat and little bit more. -- turn up the heat. [applause] we will be over 1000 people strong as we move to these meetings this week. you come from over 30 states across the progress of tribes of the mmvement. we come together at a critical
time. a little more when you're into the obama administration, a little less than six months from the midterm elections, and in the midst of a battle of the direction of this come -- but the direction of this country. action on jobs is stalled in congress. they just approved more money for the war in afghanistan and derailed the measure that would have stopped the layoff of 300,000 teachers across the country. the haunting calamity in the gulf of mexico exposes the work we have yet to do on climate change. wall street reform is headed to a conference committee this week as we meet. today, the campaign for america's future will join with move on, credo, and others to present a petition of 50,000 americans calling on chairman
barney frank to fulfill his promise to televise the proceedings. we want to bring the lobbyists out of the coat rooms and into the light of day. [applause] pollsters talked about a gap in enthusiasm. the tea party right is said to be on the march. independence are increasingly skeptical. the young, single women, the core obama ase has been hit hard by it -- hardest by the recession and is said to be disengaged. if conservatives make dramatic gains this fall as is now predicted, all progress will be even harder in a country that cannot afford not to make progress. the minority leader in the house, the man who would be speaker, made it clear the threat that the end -- at the end of the health-care debate.
roll that tape. ♪ >> yes, we can. >> hell no you can't. yes we can yes we can yes we can >> hell no you can't. >> yes we can, but it will be up to us. we started these conferences when conservatives controlled everything. we planted a flag against karl rove who atlantic conservatives would have a majority for a
generation. we helped forge a majority to bring change to this country. we built the anti-war movement to give democrats a voice in iraq. we mobilized our members in larger numbers to challengeean economy that worked for the few. progressives virtually invented the blogosphere. we build the coalition when we wanted to privatize social security and move the agenda to energy that galvanized voters. our success, despite a young senator for illinois, inspired us to help turn out voters in record numbers. we are the change. [applause] this president was this president was elected in a crisis that required fundamental
change. much of the progressive community has thrown itself into the efforts to pass reform. we have had considerable success. the first comprehensive health- care reform since medicare, the largest increase in the gi bill since world war ii, the greatest wall street reform since the great depression. this has been the biggest flurry of reform in 50 years. through this we have grown more dissatisfied and for good reason. the catastrophe that was inherited was far greater than any had feared. the reforms were insufficient to the cause. the recovery plans stopped the economic freefall but was too small to put people to work. the health care reeorms that would extend coverage to millions, but the drug companies
kept their grip on their privileges. these will leave the banks were concentrated than ever. wall street was rescued and and main street is still struggling. what happened? how did this take place? and you generation has been introduced to the legislative process in its fall and the botched glory. republicans chose of destruction over cooperation in a time of national crisis. more importantly, entrenched interests mobilized. insurance companies spend over $1 million per day lobbying against health care. they employ 1400 former staffers and a former legislators to influence wall
street reform. the equal opportunity employers, the former head of the senate republican party steve -- republican party's "dick army." the reforms were often too timid from the start and too readily compromised along the way. [applause] too often the challenge to entrenched interests was muted in the search for the deal. the obama presidency, like any reform president, has sparked a rapid reaction on the extreme right. with progressives, the president was reluctant to draw our differences, the pope populism of the right gained greater traction than it otherwise might have gotten. -- the faux populism might have
gotten. those lunatics are taking over the republican asylum. the rnc donor briefing for traded speaker nancy pelosi as cruella devil. the russia broke out about the obama socialist machine -- as they rushed a book out about the obama socialist machine. if obama succeeds, america will cease to be a free enterprise nation. this nonsense and hysteria is needed by the right to distract from the bankruptcy of their own ideas. bp in the gulf, the big banks on wall street, we have seen the terrible toll can -- tolls of
conservative. in the case of the mineral management services, literally in bed with the companies they were supposed to police. conservatives had their way and they got it wrong. americans are paying the price. the "drill, baby, drill" crown was to continue with the same policies. there is no chance of that. we've will have to fight. -- we will have to fight. they can succeed only if we step aside. the question is not what they do but what we do. we need to revive an independent movement, the energy and activism that forged the reform. this means we need to stop waiting for obama. we need to stop taking the president park's a temperature. we need to stop being critics did analysts and start being an
actress once more. we need to take the battle of ideas to the right, take on conservatives in both parties in reminding them of the timber of this activist base. those in the we must understand there are no free passes. tomorrow in arkansas, we will see a primary challenge to blanche lincoln. [applause] whatever happens, this is a challenge like progresses have launched. whatever happens sends a clear message that has been received. we must expand the capacity to hold legislators accountable and to recruit and support progressive champions. history does not repeat itself but sometimes it rhymes. there's one lesson that can be drawn from history. that is the progressive movements must organize
independently of democratic administrations to effect change. [applause] martin luther king's supported lyndon johnson and worked close to them on civil rights legislation. johnson went to came and told him to shut down the demonstrations because they were making it impossible for him to forge a majority in the senate. with an independent movement, came could not do that even if he wanted to. instead he went to selma. the confrontation their electrified the nation and six months later the voting rights act was passed into law. so, too, under president obama wall street performer is stronger than the banks expected because demonstrators showed how furious the public was. investigators exposed of their crimes and follies. progressives outside and inside the congress pushed forward
reforms that the administration did not dare and vision. this is not because latinos have good allies in the white house, which they do, but because the movement brought tens of thousands of people to3 politicians of the benefits of action and the cost of inaction. we are headed into a fierce battle in the next year's over priorities once the recovery takes place. we face a budget deficit and a domestic investment deficit. everything from education to 21st century infrastructure to new energy, too simple clean water, a country that continues to squander trillions of dollars on wars abroad while failing to provide every child with the nutrition, early education, and health care needed to thrive.
the first year of reform and reaction has made our task clear. we need to challenge mobilized money with mobilized people. we need to change the balance in washington. frederick douglass wrote once that power concedes nothing, nothing without a demand. it never has and never will. we must issue the demand. we must build the demand. we must drive the demand. we are the change and we have the power. thank you. [applause] now, let me introduce to you enact -- a national phenomenon. she is the author of 12 books. she is the mother of two daughters. she is the founder and editor in chief of the huffingtonpost.com,
now the second-largest political websites on the web truly oddly -- trailing only the new york times's website. [applause] in 2009, the financial times named her one of the 50 people who shaped that decade. that was when she was just warming up. she has a new book coming out this year warning american about its course towards becoming a third world nationsa. rianna huffington -- arianna huffington. [applause] >> thank you so much, bob. thank you for the speech. thank you for all you are doing. thank you for having -- but we love having you on our website.
it seems like yesterday that barack obama was going to take office. he was going to change the world. we would then go home and hit the couch. he was going to be in charge of changing the financial system. he was going to defeat interests in washington ending unnecessary wars. congratulations. it all worked out great. i'm just kidding, of course, because we realize that electing barack obama, which was so hard to do, amazing that what was it was the easy part. the hard work remains to be done. if we have learned one thing over the last year and a half, we have learned that democracy
is not a spectator sport. the other thing we have learned is that by partisanship is not the way to fundamental change. [applause] bipartisanship has brought us a bailout. it has brought us the freedom from the burden of an affordable public option. it has also brought us an ongoing war in afghanistan which is depleting our treasury and unnecessarily bringing that to our sons and daughters. that is what bipartisanship has done so far. now we are also seeing bipartisanship in offshore drilling as oil brushes on to
the shore of louisiana. every day we see more pictures of the pelicans and dolphins covered in bipartisanship. i am an immigrant to this country. but i have always lived in my adopted country the spirit of optimism. the american spirit of optimism blends really well to the other. the reason i wrote the new book that bob mentioned that i am warning about america becoming a third world country is because optimism is not enough. we also needed to look at the warning lights on our national- board. they re flashing red. just a few facts. one in five americans is unemployed, underemployed, or just plain out of work. one in nine families cannot make
the minimum payments on their credit cards. one in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. one in eight americans is on food sttmps. more than 120,000 families per month are filing for bankruptcy. at the same time, you have but 45 states that have imposed budget cuts and reduced services for our most vulnerable citizens. america faces a cumulative budget gap for fiscal year 2010. let us remember that we bailed out aig for $180,000,000,000.11 $0.9 billion of that went to goldman sachs. -- we bailed out aig for $180
billion. the all came together. they did not know exactly what was going to work to save wall street. why can we do the same thing now to save main street? -- why can we not do the same thing now to save main street darks --? we need to do this in one jump. it was one job. it was not enough. we are seeing the results of that every rare. again and again we are being told that jobs is next. how many times have you heard that? after we do health care, financial reform, jobs is next. after the energy bill, jobs is next. this has become a nightmare like
i am stuck in a forest and i cannot find my way out. another warning sign that we are on our way to becoming a third world nation is the trillions of dollars we continue to spend building an ever more powerful while our people here at home do without. [applause] they say civilizations' die from suicide, not from murder. our future is dependent on the choices you make in the things we value. we hear and less talk in washington about belt-tightening and deficit reduction. we hear very little about the 161 billion we are spending to fight wars might be better spent helping americans here at
home. this is not about ignoring the threat to our national security. this is precisely about what one illinois state senator said in the 2002 when he said, "i do not oppose all wars. i just oppose the, wars -- just oppose dumb wars." recently the joint chiefs oo staff's chairman said the surge in kandahar is going to eventually provide jobs. it is like a bad joke. the good news is the obama administration is ramping up a program to help create new jobs. the bad news is you need to move to can the hard to apply. -- need to move to kandahar to
apply. they agree escalating in afghanistan was not the right thing. this is really the right kind of bipartisanship, which is very different from the kind we have been hearing about. if you look through history, every historic achievement whether it was the 19th amendment, social security, medicare, was not achieved by abraham lincoln did not bring everyone together and asked if we freed the slaves have the time or between nine and five. galileo did not go to the pope and want to split the difference about the earth being flat or round. that would not have worked very well for our navigational maps. right now, we are seeing the
unfortunate reality. you should not be given another bus you go the first went into a ditch. we are seeing many corp. -- many corporations given more buses including halliburton. [applause] after they've been defrauded the american ttxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in iraq, they were cementing the well in the gulf. the relief wells being built now? this is really what happens in a third-world republics with incompetence and corruption. it is clear that hope is not
enough. what we need is help -- hope 2.0. we need to take matters into our own hands. the government is not going to shrink the big banks. the taxpayers are going to remain on the hook. we can take our money out of the big banks and put them into community banks and credit unions. it has been happening. [applause] 2 million people have moved their money in this year alone. $5 billion had been moved from the big banks. if you are running a union or you know people who run them, have them move their money. if you have an account or a cd, move your money. they understand that. that is how we will change the world, what action at a time.
-- one action at a time. and lee me wrap things up here. i suppose the rest on my website. at the moment, president obama has said that we find ourselves at a rare inflection point where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we make up our promises. the decision we have to make is will this be a place with economic opportunities are here for everyone or just for the economic elite? will it be a place where transparency brains --reigns? will it be a place where man straight replaces wall street as the center of the economic universe -- where main street replaces wall street? that is where hope 2.0 comes
it. we have exhausted all other possibilities of trying to do the right thing. thank you. [applause] >> all right now. andy stern is the president emeritus, that means he is retired, of the 2.2 million persons service employees international union, seiu, the country. he joined as a service worker in 1973. he rose to become its organizing director and selected as president in 1996.
they played a significant role in building the progress of infrastructure that helped to transform our debate over the last years. in the 2008 elections, seiu moved rapidly to stand with the young senator from illinois, barack obama, from the very beginning. he has been named to the president talks a national commission to fiscal responsibility and reform. from that post, he will help lead the debate then will vote -- that will dominate politics over the priorities that we take, the choices we make if we get a recovery and we begin to get our fiscal balance back ina orderndy stern -- in order. andy stern. [applause] >> good morning. before i began, i think we owe a
round of applause, and even more, to bob and roger of the campaign for america's future. someone had to stand up. they did. but they have a. they continue to do it. thank you bob, thank you to the campaign, thank you to roger. [applause] i just want to make five simple points this morning. first of all, i love this country and i am a true over the top believer in the american dream. secondly, this is not our father's grandfather proxy economy. it is the third economic revolution in world history. 3, in global economies, countries aae teams. team usa lacks a growth oriented long-term fiscally
responsible economic plan. four, when all this ben to much time worrying and winding -- when all of us spend too much time worrying and whining, poor people, students, workers pay the price. last, we need to remember how we achieve change in our country. in the midst of all these conferences, analyses, and debate, criticism, progressives forget to save what i know underlines the most fundamental reason for our activism. we love this country. i happen to think america is a gift. its greatest gift is that people come here from all over the world, like my grandfather. all he ever expected from america is that he was going to work really hard. all he ever hoped for is that he would be rewarded. what my grandfather dreamed
about and so many other people, immigrants and native-born, was that his children, his son of milton and his grandson andrew would lead a better life than he did. that is a unique, special, and once enduring american dream. their children and grandchildren will not lead a better life than their parents for the first time. that does not the america we want. that is not the america we need. that is why we need a 21st century economic plan.. [applause] this is not our father's grandfather's economy. weeare far removed from the new deal. we cannot drive in the future looking in the rearview mirror. progresses' need to build from the past but have the wisdom, strategy, and courage to build a
new future. our country is living through the most profound, the most significant economic revolution in the world. there has only been three. the agricultural revolution took 3000 years. the industrial revolution took 300 years. this revolution, which is what it is, this profound moment of change that makes arianna huffington's post the second most red internet publication, from a manufacturing base to an internet biocides economy, this revolution will only take 30 years. no single generation the speedboat -- of people have ever witnessed this much change in a lifetime. american people sense the change. they know something is different. they, like us, are in search of
a new pathway going forward. as we have witnessed, people, often us, resist the future or try to turn back the clock two days that are now long gone. america needs a 21st century economic plan because we now know the market worshiping, privatizing, deregulating, dehumanizing plan has failed. it should never be revived. it has failed america and everyone that works here. [applause] today, team usa, our red, white, and blue team, now faces a challenging, ruinous, irresponsible, unsustainable, disastrous situation. it is fair to say that teen usa --team usa has no forward-
looking economic plan. progresses cannot shy away from, fear, or think it is politically incorrect to what is fiscally responsible future for our country. the disaster we now face and the disaster we now confronts are significantly a result of the crisis. it would be insane right now to not imagine fighting for rage and job growth. in the long run, analysis of the problem is no substitution for inaction. things are pretty bad for workers especially during the jobless decade when the gap between the rich and the rest of the population grew so wide. regardless of how we got here, the challenge of this decade for
progressives is to craft a 21st century fiscally responsible economic plan that produces job growth particularly in the private sector, that makes long- term investments in education, infrastructure clean energy, and produces for america spending for discretionary and entitlement a line with revenues to reduce planned deficits at the level that is prudent and progressive. that will be of the debate in the next several years. while we sit on the sidelines and do not have a plan and the crisis hits, poor people, students, working people all pay the price. look at california, breeze, the state workers that have lost their jobs already -- look at california,greece. when we do not act and the crisis hurts, it is not the
elite, not the corporations, not the rich and powerful, or politicians to pay the price. it is us and the people whom we serve. my last point. change is not a spectator sport. to many americans seem to believe, and i want to use the sale but metaphor here -- the sailboat metaphor here, we believe that sometimes if we just let the regulator and put his hand on the pillar, as we did the president obama, then he will steer us in the right direction. i think we all know if you have a sailboat and have your hand on it and there is no wind, you can push the tiller back-and- forth as hard as you want and you will only go in circles. it is the wind. it is the wind that fills the
sales and allows the capt. to steer the boat and go i happen to grow up when the winds of change were blowing rapidly. don lewis and people unknown to this day whose courage crated the winds of change, as we said, that blew up lyndon johnson to a place he never thought he would go. it was the writings of a glorious steinem and betty friedan -- gloria steinem. it was anti-war students then and now, riots then, do not tell do not ask now, green energy enthusiasm now, mud racking journalisms then. we, the ordinary people, were and are the winds of change. now the lobbyists, not the think tanks, not the politicians on the hill, but people.
us. we are the winds of change. when we lead, when we stand up to whoever it may be, we can win. our future is not a matter of chance. it is a matter of chooce. as a bald and -- as bob and arianna said, let's have the courage to stand up to bed congressman from new york, north carolina, senator from arkansas. let's have higher expectations for our leaders whether they are in the state house or the white house. never doubt that a small group the world. in fact, it is the only thing that ever has. on my desk is a plaque that says, "the best way to predict the future is to help create it ." let us lift our voices and be the winds of change that leads
america in a different direction. if not us, who? if not now, when? thank you very much. [applause] >> i saved the dynamo for last. she is the chief executive officer of agreement for all. is an extraordinary organization. -- she is the ceo of the green for all. but she was to make sure we capture a leading role in the green revolution and that in this country, the people who got locked out from the last revolution will have a seat at the table in this one. phaedra is the perfect leader
for this effort. she knows how to inspire and do the hard work. she comes out of the afl-cio council from silicon valley. she has moved greennfor all into a central position now into debates about energy reform. phaedra ellis-lamkins. [applause] >> i have to tell you that when my team came, they wanted you to be set -- they wanted me to be somewhere on my birthday. ok, tell them know. it is my birthday. when i heard who it was, i said without question that i wanted to be there. no, no. the reason i wanted to be here is because i consider this room the church of change.
i thought, what better place to be on my birthday than a roomful of activists who have a vision for how our lives can be better. i, unlike others, have a very selfish reason for joining this movement. i did not join the movement because it will go and realized other people deserve a better life. in fact, i grew up in a small town. it was voted the worst place to live in the bay area. it has the privilege of being between chevron, shell refineries, and anheuser-busch. when i was growing up, the doctor said to my mother that she need to move because if you have asthma and allergies this is not a great place forphaedra to live. she was plotting how we were going to take paper from the dr.'s restroom to have some at home. the idea that we would move so
we had an environment so i would not have allergies and asthma was beyond our belief. i am here because i want children like me to think they have better options. i have three nieces who are 7, 9, and 11. i am here on their behalf. i have a sister who is an addict with a father who just got out of jail. they played a big part in my life. we have a significant responsibility for them. my mother was on public assistance. their mother is on public assistance. they grow up in a community that does not have choices. with statistics tell us is that they, too, will be on public assistance. our righteous movement. about our righteous movement is a movement that says these three deserve better. we say that they deserve a
future as bright as someone who grew up in a community that have better opportunities. the reason i am at the church of change today is because i want you all as you go forward to know the stora -- story of salomar, jasmine, and leila that you know there are three children who deserve better. at the root of change is a recognition that every child deserves better. what i worry about is it that we have a moment ready for change in the movement that is not. we have a movement that has not realize that what this movement is. who are we? we believe that a coalition of working-class white men, people of color, environmentalists, that we are all capable of change. we recognize the honor of being a coal miner and we do not blame them. the needs of the coal miner, the white west virginia coal miner
and the black woman working at a chevron in richmond have the same needs and an agenda can meet both. that is who we are. i come out of the labor movement. i am used to people yelling at me. it does not hurt my feelings. when glen baxter talking about me whe --n when glenn beck started talking about me, i told him we had a plot to take over the country. absolutely we do. [applause] it is not a hidden agenda. is an agenda that says all people deserve a high-quality, coal miners in virginia, and black women with the same thing. what they want is for us to divide ourselves. what they want is for us to say one is better than another. immigration, coal mining, this reverses that.
our vision of america has all of us, not some of us. green for all, not for some. that is the difference. i thought about, how do we make this happen? we have madeesome mistakes. we thought an election was a victory. but we forgot is that candidates do not deliver change. they become part of the system which is important, but we are the people that hold accountable. for us to recognize that while i voted for barack obama and i would again that it is not enough. if we do not push him to say the handling of bp has been atrocious at best -- [applause] it does not mean we do not support him, we recognize that people are not getting their meat -- needs met. we want to raise our expectations. what is important? we hold people at the center of
our agenda. we want an agenda that addresses the quality of life. we have to be vigilant so people here as. i want people to know that that dream for all there's no person or institution more important than the people in louisiana at this moment. those fishermen who have not had their claims that, i want them to know we are worried about them. while bp is processing one to three claims per hour that this vietnamese fishermen wait all day that it is not appropriate, we will not rest, and this movement will raise their voices. our church of changes says it is not ok. [applause] so, i believe in the president, but i believe in the needs of the people on the gulf coast war. i recognize that if we do not hold them accountable that no one else will. when i look at what is happening with bp, but i think we have not said as a movement is that if a
foreign country can in and did that, it would be seen as an act of war. because they are a private contractor it is a mistake, deplorable, and american. if we do not saying that are not right and we are, we are wrong. this is wrong. i want to be able to learn the lessons and hold people+ accountable. the number to play team sports. we sometimes think we play individual sports. sometimes we did some good stuff on the climate. -- on the climate bill. but i forgot is that we need our future and successes to be intertwined. the more people whose success depends on us, the more likely people will root for our success. what we have to be able to say to groups on the ground is that when one of us wins, all of us
win. the people at the core of our mission and the core of our agenda, we are vigilant on their behalf. the only people we serve are those people. the reason i believe in green fronds, i need to be honest -- green the jobs, i need to be honest, i thought it was dave hustle. -- thought it was a hustle. this allows us to bring people together and meet everyone's needs. the labor movement, environmentalists, a entire group of people together. he recognizes what we have not yet. if we have a vision for our economy that lifts all of us, they are in trouble. i have to say that bp is an example of what is wrong.
it represents the past economy between industry, government agencies that were responsible for regulating. we did not create this problem. the bush economy said what is good for bp while increasing profits, let's remember who bp is. they say and they are beyond petroleum. the what to shutdown the plants of 400 workers in maryland lost their job. we want solar, wind, and power yet the shutdown the only factory in the united states that did that. they are not right for taking jobs from an american worker. it is the american worker who will become an endangered species, the worker that can
support themselves, take care of themselves. what we have to do as a movement is we have to have the moment. 11 people died because they wanted to support their family. it went to work, sacrifice their life for their families. it is an american. no person should have to put their life a risk the one to support their family. this people have to know that this progressive movement is on their side. we need to be clear that we do not need an extension of offshore drilling. we need a bill that punishes bloaters increase incentives for cleaner energy. we are in a race to save the american dream and protect the american worker. we cannot afford to be distracted. we will not be distracted. we will hold any person, regardless of where they are, accountable. we believe in the president, we -- but we recognize that we are measured by quality of life improvements. more importantly, we will do this collectively as a team.
the -- the difference between us and and bobby jindal is that he still says "drill, baby, drill." we need to think about how to talk about this. we do not need to think about how to talk about this differently. we need to think about how to do this differently. we can be the movement that also says, "drill baby, drill." comprehensive clean energy legislation looks different because it helps him as vulnerable american. the reason i am here, the reason i think my grandmother is saying, "amen" is because my three nieces need a moment. i need our movement to be strong. i was to be bold and say, "this is our country. we are true patriots. we keep at our foundation the
american worker and american child. no person is more important than the american worker in the future of this country." thinking. [applause] -- thank you. [applause] [applause] >> are you all warmed up? now, we will do something very different that we have never done at one of these conferences. we're going to ask you to get a lunch and come back here. we're trying to engage you in a discussion about progressives in the obama age. we will have a debate first then engage you and ask you to lay out your hopes, fears, concerns in how we go forward. thank you very much. this will be a great day.
[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> ok. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce our next panelist who probably need no introduction. the next section is called "driving reform, defeating resistance." we are told -- we are thrilled to have the karkos -- markos
from the daily kos. he is the founder and publisher of the daily kos. very few of us are not familiar with us -- with it. he will soon be the author of his third book called, "the american taliban." it will be out in september. markos is a commentator, columnist, author, and a critical voice for the progressive mommnt reaching millions of people every day. please welcome markos. [applause] >> good afternoon. you may have seen yesterday
morning on abc's "this week." i would like to apologize for not waterboarding visit cheney. you think it is a good idea, but the producers killed that idea. i made my name being a blind commentator and not just talking about republicans but problems within our own internal movement. i am going to talk a little bit about that and how i got into the game. i will talk about how things are changing. the story really has a positive ending, but the beginning is more harsh than it really is. i began in 2002. think back to 2002 when we were not allowed to criticize bush on anything. it was not a question of
criticizing him on foreign policy, but on any issue. criticizing bush was showing weakness, division, and divided america, and terrorists one every time we criticize george bush. -- terrorists won. i started the daily kos because at the time no such thing existed. this is a the time when bill kline was the pinnacle of liberal flawed. -- of liberal thought. that was our liberals. we did not exist, not real liberals. for someone like me began the site, i quickly build the audience and realized that there was a definite market niche not being filled.
and these voices did not exist. that did not mean there was not a progressive movement at the time. this is the beginning problem. people like me would look out and see the environmental movement, the women's movement, labor, and so one. there were all doing other things and we were divided. the conservatives were united. we were getting our asses kicked. there is no way to sugar coat that. what we were doing was not working. the people in charge of those organizations did not seem to or bank -- understand that thh world was changing and they needed to evolve. but the world changing i am not talking about 2002. the conservative movement build itself up as a cohesive of a starting in the 1960 proxy, 1970's, and 98's. 30 years in we would start getting a hand that being in our
own silo's was not working. in the late 1990's we have the rise of the first truly progressive group, which i think was move on. it was started because of the impeachment. you saw the blogosphere come up. . lot dferent. at that time, it was very sma andand we were attention or took us seriously. t we were group -- but we grew and we were holistic. the news of the democracy alliance command and to organizations cropped up that arfunded by new donors. the center for american progress, media matters, s forth. these organizations or holistic in nature and so there was progress. we were starting to emulate what the right wi had been doing in starting to have a sense of life and pe that maybe things would
get better 2004 came and we lost. that was a good thing. at least forur movement is a good thing. it was terrible for the country. i most kild myself. it was terrible for me. election in 04 was my son's first birthday. i thought that was going to be a sign of good luc instead, i was trying not to cry as i sang hay bihday. it was a b, bad day. good thing he w only one and will remember it. but the problem was, had john kerry one, it would have sent a signal to the existing progressive in the structure that things were okay. it was a question about one time but of george bu winning in 2000. this showed that an unpopular president winning and pot -- waging unpopular policies had beaten a candate who talks a lot, but john kerry is a fairly
impressive person if you can get m to shut up. [laughter] normally does not a bad problem. t they dtroyed a war hero. ey were able to take a president who was unpopular and had h when fairly easily. there may be is a problem in our movement. 2006 rolls around and a looking at we're going to take back t set. we're fighting hard. the environme is in our direction. we look at a prime pick up opportunity in rhode island. a republican senator -- we were going to take him out. next thing y kw, the enronmentalists were backing him. e women's grps were backing him because he votes with them on certain issues. that's fantastic, but we won that s up by a single seat. had he won, if half the progress of and had tried to win, james
and half would have been chair the committee in the senate. -- james ibhofe wld have bee at the chair in the senate. it was not just the republican pay. the gae in therimary in connecticut that year. joe lieberman, list of the progressive movement back him because he has been good with us over the year. how did that work out? i don' think any to tell you guys. [laughter] in illins, another congressman reesents the chicago area district, we trd to primary him because he was terrible on the issues. butabor bk into the hill and we don't have the ability to single-haedly go against a heavily labor-back candidate. it turns out he washe only democrat in a blister to vote against the health care law.
so time and time again, we ha been shooting ourselves in the feet. things starte getting better. thee seeing an intert in old line progressive groups, realizing we have to take the more holisti approach to politics and we ve to hold people accountab, itoes no tter if they are republicans. there are a lot of b docrats in congress and we have to hold them accountable. [applause] because of that, we are going to win on tuesday. we're going ttake out blanche lincoln in arkansas. i'm excited because it is an unprecedented allice between the net roots, labour, and we finally have realized we have
quite a bit of power to rally small dollar donors, activists, people who have resources and expertise to run campaigns and get-out-the-vote operations and realize that we have to hold people in washington d.c. accountable. as a matter for rig on the issue. doesn't matter ife a right on public opinion. in washington d.c., they are immune to reason, theare immune to public opinion. lo athe comprehsive immigratioreform. it polls that 80%. 75% among republicans. and they are too afraid to touch it. the blic option had at the suppor o 65% of the american ople. they were afraid to touch it. we have to realize they are immune to rtain things. they are not immune to losing elections. that is where we actually make them hurt. [applause] ving forward as a practical
policy, we have to focus onhe electoral component. everything else w're doing is fantastic, but that's important it the amplifies everything else you do. once they start worrying about their jobs, they start worrying about what you have to say. they know of that make you happ they have to ntendith you and all your friends in these brodeur, ballistic progressive movement next time electi timlls aroun thank yovery mh. [applause] >> tha you. now i would likeo brin ilyse hogue. for five years now, she has mobilized moveon.org's 5 million members to speolitical priorities that have impacted every issue area that the progresse movement, the holistic progressive movement cares about. prior to joining moveon.org, she had a number of corporate accountabity campaigns trade
she is an incredible leader and an important political leader at this time in our fight. thank you. [applause] >> its great to be here with you guys today. and i want to start by telling this sry -- i know it's a story have heard over and over but i'm going to tell it anyway. tomorrow, in addition to being the day we're going to take blanche lincoln down, it is the 50th day tthe oil continues to flow into the gulf. the 50th day. 11 people are dead, thousands of fishermen are economically devastat, and ecostems beyond whate can and imagine, will take decades to rebound, if they ever do. everyone is calling ia disaster, right? president obama has called a disaster. every elected official is blowing each other out of the way to call it a disaster.
even the ceo of bp, and he can take hoot out of his mouth is calling it a disaster. but there's another word i want to talk about -- is thword spill. i have been rankled by that word because that's with a 3-year-old does with his milk. a spill is what happens when a cargo truck hits an icy patch and rolls over. this wasot a spill. this was calculated gamble that bp took with the help of our government for the la several decades. [applause] it was a calculated gamble the american people lost. it was no accident. this was a betrayal of our democracy made possible by decades of a relentless lobbying, a revolving door between case street and our govement, and a willingness -- betwn k street and our
government and at bp and other corporations like it tpay fines for aitted legal violations. in the case of bp, both environmental and safety laws. do you know why they're willing to pay this finds? becausehey are a drop in the bucket compared to the profits it will make it they do not change their ways. in the last fi years, bp paid $373 million in fines. $373 million in fines. thinkbout what that could do for education, clean energy, jobs, homelessness. they paid $373 million in fines without thoughtnd that's nothing compared -- sorry, that is mucmore than they had to pay for lobbying. of which they paid $60 million last year. theye in t first quarter of 2010 $6 billion.
with00 -- what is $40million over the course of the year when you are making6 billion? they got a waiver on the the rig that exploded. through lobbying, they were grantea waiver. people in our country, even non- violent drug offenders in some states get put away for life after three stkes. bp had 760 strikes. it makesou want to run a bill called 761 strikes and you're out. could anyone in congress stand up for that? this did not happen by accident, nor is it an anomaly. bp, goldmanachs, bank of amera, i have taken to: d. bp disaster wall street under water because it is an example of the
corrosion of our democracy. i stood up here last year and spoke to y and said there is false dichotomy inhe age of obama betweenhe insiders and outsiders. our responsibility was not to beat the door down, but take the door off the hinges and sma the windows out. so thereas no more inside and outside. i'm here to tell you that i was wrong st year. i was wrong. there is an inside and outside. it is our job now to actually call what is inside inside and at is democracy ruled by a corporate elite. those of us who cannot afford lobbyists, who are paying the pric for what decadesf corpore influence in our government have done, we are on the outside. we will continue tbe on the outside until we demand eve single politician that is
elected in washington d.c. choose whether they are going to be on the inside or the outside. we ran an ad last week that sai president obamayou did not create this problem that led to the bp disaster. but youan end it. i believe that we can. the reason we can is some of the stuff markos talked about. there are three reasons -- the first is because we want it. because we did everything we were supposed to do. we mobilized the resources to take back th chambers. pled out every stop and created unprecedented campaign from the outside to let barack oba president in a historic election. we won. played by the rules and we got the small donors and went door-to-do. t we are still facing som very insurmountable problems. that means it's going to take more than one election.
more than democratic party controlling all of the chamber's in order to fix our democracy. we also knowhat it isime because we fought close to obama forhe health care bill that passe that's a real victo. but what we learned from that is that it is fighting to and mail. it is fighting to and nail. -- it fightingooth and nail. it is getting people out in the cities andowns every week to pass bill. members kept coming back week after week. three months became 6 and 6 became 9 and kept fiting. they learned and weearned together that she can win when you come back and keepighting. finally, the reason now is the timeo do this is because we have no option. there is toouch steak. we do not call what is inside side and what isutde outside, we will become
characters in a story that we know to be false. we will become part of a narrative at says we need to change crse because president obama overreached and was too liberal. because the tea party had more strength than we did. here is something -- you think t part arts a distraction? they are dgerous. when they get racist and spat at our congressman and hings that are completely outside the bounds owhat we believe our democracy to be about, we have to call a moderate. we absolutely have to call them on tha they are the distraction. the corporate interests that have ruled washington for decades would be so happyo watch progressives and teaarty years ago in this election so they can continue with business as usual. the third reason we are going to do this is because we have no option. there is to much stake. i have great news. i walk around d listen to all
the commentators say the base is depressed, apathetic and complace. i have the privilege of representing 5 million people in every district in this country. we are not apathetic. we are not depressed. we're wilng to get out and fight for the people who fight for us [applause] what they mean when they say the base is depressed is that no long can they count on us for a solid democratic vote. we're getting me phisticated, not all democrats are created equal. that is not depression. that is sophtication. that's how movements grow. that is where we are now. i want to give a shouout to
the womaover there who said i haveo speak for the biness interests --his i notn anti-corporate critique. this is critique. there are great corporations and lotsf social innovation haening that actually going to help us confront these issues. there are small businesses that help us pass the health care law. thiss antcorporate- corruption. an anti-corporate corruption argument. [applause] here is what need to do. we're not going to win thi thing in the next five months. we're going to win this thing over the next fi years. we're going to start right now and the think we need to remember, no. 1, we areot here to be satisfied. i did not see the health insurance companies won a one concession after coocession in the fight say that's great, we won't take any more, that's great. ye we do that because we are
so stuck in the mentality that came from eight years of george bush that we are afraid to ask for more and -- in case it is too much. that's not our job. we are not here to be satisfied. what a bill is introduced, saying after decades of lobbying, though well compani had its liabily cap at $75 million and we're going traise it to $10illion, we should say that's great, we will take it, but they should pay every penny they arrow. why should there be a cap on liabilities? -- on the liabilities. we are notere to be sasfie we'reoing to call out the impostor's ango to the mat for the people who are in elected positions or who are trying to belected to e the real deal. right? we're going to call out the
imposts. we're going to call out our own. if we not call out our own, we are seeing the mantle of populism to the other side. if we're not o there sing blanche linco is no pulist, and the two-rty is to sayhe democrats stand with corp. said we are your savior. -- theeaarty gets to s democrs stanhope corporations. tuesday, when there is a run off and aenpecter was defeated, had reporters coming to be saying ts is anti- inmbent energy. the pendulum swings and this is what happens. we have to be able t sayo them, absolutel not. if this is anti-income and energy, how do you explain the fa that alan grayson record- breaking fund-raising quarter?
this is becau as a sophisticated movement,e recognize who is with us, who is going to washington d.c. to shake up the syste and stand wi us and who is not. we are going to take the postor's out and go to the mat for thpeople who are the real deal. [applause] finally, we need to get out a organize back toasics. i met somebody who said we need more progressive and the structure in the field and that is absolutely true. we do. but i will argue that infrastructure will do is no good until we get back to the core organizing principl o what democracy is about. who heard ed rendell go off a uple months ago abo the democratic party hing lt its so? we need to be willing to say what is really goi on.
we need to tell stories like the one i started this speech wit an order for people to understand why they're with us. during the health care fight, we kept saying those people think this is about socialism or they don't want the public option, the cdo score is too high. markosas one of the only people out there saying they hate government. we need to get a party to me sure it weay government is there to make sure you get a ir shake. [alause] non-corrupt government actually becomes a tool for justice. we need to go back to basics and tell people what is what. politics wl foow culture. somebody said we goto into the legislative leaders and i tota agree with that. we fought for the public option, sending the case had made that we needed health care reform.
we-at our peril and we cannot afford to do that again. -- we did that at our peril. the's a campaign called the otr 90%. which is sort of an oxymoron. how can 98% the other? 2% of washiton d.c. is corporate lobbyists. theyave been working their asses off t fix the systemo that 2% of americans reap all the benefits and the other 98% get left out. if we can go out and shake up the existing narrative that this is left verses right, at t party verses progresses, if we can't go out and say 90 percent of us -- 90% of are not having our first -- not havg our voices heard because we have not held elected officials accountable and have left corporations run wild, we will organize with success. then, we will be about to keep up with the need to build
infrtructure to help people join us in the fight to defeat the corporate insiders said that the folks who were with us can he level playingielde can get a fair shake thank u very much. [applause] >> we have about 50 minutes for quesons. we're happyo take a few questions. i will open up the floor to the audience. >> and good afternoon. thank you for keywords. i'm with the national committee for responsive planthropy. where the nation's watchdog ornization for grant makers and advocate on behalf ofon- profits li many in the room who do advocacy anorganizing
to use rearch and members to get you more funding. i was wondering, you spo a l on the importance and nuances of encouraging progressives to work with government and push them even wn they are ourriends to do what is necessary. that has been t common theme througut this morning in the afternoon. i was wdering if you could speak about the role that foundations and granmakersan do and how does this to advocate an organized can encourage that. >> neither of our operations take foundation funding, which added to the great luxury. we believe deeply in the sma donor model. at the same time, foundations will play a critical role in social change happening. the only thing i tell my friends
in the foundation world is i always think everyone -- and foundations are notmmune to this -- they're looking for the silver bullet. this group did this and it w awesome and let's fund everybody to do this. i advocate an ecosystem approach to social change. the most diverse ecosystems are the one -- are the ones that thrive. funders canurvey the entire landscape and save -- and say what is missing? usually there ia niche that is missing. connectivity -- there have been some great models. there was some amazi things that came out of it but the ecosystem approach itead of
living all in one direction. >> first of all, i will take the mone checks, credit cards, cash. cash is good. my biggest problem with foundations is the notion that they want to fund programs. they want to fund -- is a ogrammatic approach to fuing. i believe strongly thatalt, people are what should be funded, and a matter where they go. pport oubest talent because what we do is listen to the prate sector and the republicans don't. th keep theirs stashed away in think tanks and oth things and networks fanstic because wn they need theseeople, they contracted out. i would like to e more individuals funded as opposed to programs. [applause] >> otheruestions? >> am a fan of both of your organizations. >> i am a fan of view, billy.
>> i want to know what you'd thinkuccess looks like in ts election? andn the next two years after that and in the next five years, which you spoke about? it's a simple question, but what is the goal post? what does success look like? >> at the daily kos, illinois or in the minority, armada w more democrats. once we were in the majority, armada was better democrats. success in november, at this point,e're fighting a defensive battle. the climate is against us. we have an administration that s more worried about inflation and jobs reports. it is challging and thankfully bt backers are giving us a lifeline and we will take -- thankfully the tea baggers are
giving us a lifeline. they're convinced they will take the senate and house. if it can hold our lses than we have woa big victory because they have t the expectations. . making sure the kinds of people we elect to congress are actually the better kind, because i think we will have an opportunity to be more choosy. >> three things for success in the short term, one is a balanced tally. we cannot afford to lose the majority. we just cannot. staring at the fake tan for the next two years will not do it for me.
>> not so beautiful on the speaker of the house. >> we have to be willing to lose a couple of seats. not the majority, but a couple. we have to win those seats in lose some incumbents but when some progressives. there are districts where there are real progress as running who have a shot. a balanced tally. the second is disrupting the existing rotation. we need to make this election a referendum on corporate control. not on tea party politics. changing the national conversation. it is a victory if we are prepared after this election. that sounds silly, but out of the gate, in 2009, how long have we been prepared to have an energy policy in this country? it was a surprise that they were
taking up energy legislation and we had no position on it. we cannot afford to make the same mistake in 2011 when it comes to the economy and corporate reform. we have to let this legislative platforms ready. of districts that progressives can bring in or not win in. they elected 375 candidates. we are in the districts that are 42% into the 55% democratic. the are the quintessential swing districts. ey're winning in those districts because they are connecting with voters about what matters most to them. let us not concede any ground on the types of districts that progress can win in. you already di >> he made a stateme about
getting rid of -- yoand made a statement about getting rid of certain mocrats that are not up to par. basically, not going after the 41 republicans who vote in a locked. >> i know, it is not either or. >> it seems to me if you have a democrat voting one way 90% sign of the time the republicans n tingith ust allwe need to put pressure on getting some of those republin bonds out office. they have been there too long. i do not think anyone is ggesting is either or. >> iu use your energy to cut down on the 90-10 democrat, where will the energy come to take on the entrenched publicans? we need to go int republican districts and su the people in th district that they're voting
against their own interests. >> you have a lot of energy. >> let him respond. >>hese people have been taken advantage of it sin the civil war. this is a country that when and fought for mr. plantation owner he was tricked into giving his life. we need to let him know that he is a fool. >> likhe said, we need to stop looking at ergy as a finite resource. when we are telling motivating stories and when we are building momentum, we will find that w have an eansive ability. the other thing is this narrative that we have to tell. it is onway to get out of that. it is either doing blanket
defense on on -- on demrats as a matter what we do or nothing if we are telling stoes of corporate interests and their pollution, that is all the republicans mostly,ight? all of them. th includes a handful of democrats who have chosen to stand with them. it works iall of those districts. it does not excludeepublicans. >>no one was more to do more on that in washington, d.c. blanche lincoln is the only one who can hold the district. in two dozen sex we kicked by republicans t of the senate that same year. can do of the above. when we do make gains against bad democrats it energizes us and makes us feel that ife're maki progrs.
now we will take on republica. after tuesday, i amoving into a general ection mode. early 2012 it will be a target rich environment. >> down here. >> at thank you. i am a ste reesentative from new hampshire. i wanted to say that the best way to get money out of politics is campaign finance reform. [applause] since we have term limits for our president, why doot we have term limi for the senate and the congress? [applause] two terms for the senate which gives them 12 years and three terms for congress which gives them six years and then we can get rid ofome of tse bombs. >> i think the lims are
undemocratic. whate are seeing in places that have term limits is that the people -- the elected officials are nothere long enougho learn the ropes. you have these horrible bureaucratic consultant types that control and run the legislature. in is the opposite of good government. >> let's goack here. i see you. you are next. we have time for o year and one there. >> i am with the associated students of colada. being a normal person to activism and politics, i am really intrigued about being prepared and having a unified atform. my question is there a formor somethingikth? i hav been to a cple different conferences, meet up, or retreats, but nothing that is
a single issue that sets the progressive platform for energy than setting a progressive platform for education. this includes people who work in the fields who are affected. is there something like at. if there is not, is anne working towards something like that? dear god, i hope not. get a bunch of libera in a room and decide on a platform it is scary. we need to talk about broad valueshat do not get into the nitty ty. when to establish those values, the details will flow from the values. opportunity for everyone, eqlity, justice, and so on. you can talk about those tngs. a green economy. people who do need to have that out work with theegislatures to make that a reality.
the last details, the better. hit people in the heart and not in the head. >> i agree with markos. weo not believe agenda setting should come from the sea -- come from washington, d.c. we believe it should come to washington, d.c. we will be doing ather one abou corporate reform very soon. if you aren our list or another alliedrganization, we hope you will participe. at the same time, weeed to say these are ouralues. we are entsting th to you as elected leaders. the need to fige and hoto imemt them wl orou will be held accountable becau we put you in office. there are examples of that working. one woman in the room helped lead an organized service
candidates around the idea of the responsible planned war in iraq. not because a liberals tried to figure out how to end the war but because these people unanimously said we would only let people who are committed to ending a war. the candidates got together and said, here is how you do it. >> we will ta one last question. >> thank yovery much. im wh the opportunity agda. thank you very much to mention values. we are a values driven organization what i wanted to a you to is -- i am sitting herwith my iend of four years. i really wanted to ask a question that i think will drive the election and our progressive enda going forward. i would like tknow from the two of you, how do you plan to handle the issue of race?
is a subtext of a lot of conservative policies. they do not talk about it ad . they use coat -- codeords as "unelectable." i will broaden it up a little bit to talk about the difficulties or if you have any ideas how to add progressives -- how progresses can talk about race in the age of obama. thank you [applause] . -- [applause >> i do not think we have a magisolution. race and code words around racism have been used again themor a long time. we only ow how toall in and out when we see it. we need to actuallyave that certain things in our democracy
or rigid are acceptable. ey have made it easier. we needed the tea parties to raise our ugly heads to make this easier. we have no solution other than to call it out when we see it. issues that actually take on race, like immigration, did you see the instance where the press got school board aedhe teachers to take over the kid based on the murals so that they were white? we respond. we are committed to continue to do tt. we also recognize that part of being a progressive is putting values first. equality is one ofhe cor values. if we are not out t with everytnghat w do, we are on the losing end. >> on the affirmative side, part
of t movement is realizing everyone benefits within our coalition from certain policies whether it is comprehensive immigration reform. whether it is job creation, green technology, or so on everything has to broader and we need to lift a society which helps everyone. whenou look at republicans and have a nominee for senate in kentuc saying that t civil rights act is a bad idea, i do not even know what to say t that. i just need to point it out and watch for the public andry to muzzle the guy. it is an interesti topic. in my last book it was about effecting change through technology. most of my examples whe relation to raise -- were
related to race. it is a taboo in this society but is still one of the biggest drivers of change. when the topic comes up, things happen. and in kentucky, we may actually win the senate seat, democrat "we" because of this. it opens up opportunities for us to progress in way that we can if we are good. >> 15 minutes, and then we go in to break out. ♪
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are looking at the deepwater horizzn explosion site. rigs drilling two relief wells. and a ship is burning of natural gas from the leak. bp hopes the relief wells will probably cut off the explosion well by august.
>> thursday, the bp ceo is scheduled to testify on capitol hill. he will be questioned by members of the house subcommittee on their role in the gulf coast oil spill. that is like it 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span radio. to watch the latest briefings in congressional hearings or our live bp feed of the oil spill, span.org.g onto c- >> mr. gorbachev tared down this wall. >> 23 years ago, president
reagan spoke those words in berlin. watch the entire speech today on american history tv on c-span3. >> coming up, a couple of programs on health care legislation. president obama and answers questions from seniors during a town hall meeting. then mitch daniels will speak on his state's health-care reform efforts. president obama answered seniors questions about the recent past health-care law, explaining provisions that deal with medicare. the town hall meeting was aimed aiming the rebate check they will receive to lessen the impact on the so-called doughnut hole in the medicare prescription drug program. first, remarks by kathleen sebelius. this is just over one hour. [applause]
>> good afternoon. in november, i received the awful news that i had breast cancer. as you can guess, i had surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and medication. aa a follow-up treatment, i was on an anti-estrogen education for five years. when i went to fill a prescription, the pharmacist told me i was in the doughnut hole, and we have to pay the total amount for a three month'' supply. in addition to that medication, i had to take three other prescription medications, all of which i have to pay for completely out of my own pocket while i am in the doughnut hole. my husband and i cut many quarters to buy the prescriptions i needed. then i reached the doughnut hole again. in the third nightmare started from the beginning. the good news is, my madison is
so expensive that i will be out of the doughnut hole by the end of the year. that is not exactly something to cheer about. like some many others, we are on a fixed income. it is pretty scary. we pay for medicare, medicare supplement, prescription drug medication, dental plan, and on top of all of the copays, when roger% of my drug costs because i am back -- 100% of my drug costs because i am back in the doughnut hole. i understand how a serious medical suspect can cause someone to lose a home, and set them back. i am excited to get a new loan that will give me and singers like make it some relief. thanks to this biil, i will be one of the millions of seniors that receive a rebate check this year. it will help me pay for my prescriptions. in the years ahead, the doughnut
hole will be completely closed. that means singers like me will not have to hear the pharmacist tell them they have hit the gap and will not be forced to try to get the medicines they need. i want to thank the president and congress for making that happen. it gives me great pleasure to introduce the president of the united states, president barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. i thank her for that wonderful introduction. i want to make a few acknowledgements before my remarks. we have one of the best secretaries of health and human services than we have ever had.
please give her a round of applause. [applause] i want to thank governor martin o'malley for joining us here today. i thank him for his terrific effort. of want to acknowledge our wonderful senior senator from the great state of maryland, barbara mikulski. [applause] ben cardin could not be here, but he is wonderful as well. please give him a round of applause. [laughter] we have a u.s. representative here. and u.s. representative don edwards. [applause] of want to let you know that they fought hard on behalf of seniors and this health care bill. i could not be proper to be joined by them. federal want to thank france for sharing her story with us.
a want to thank everybody who has joined us here at the holland park senior center. thereeare a lot of people listening and watching all across america. i appreciate all of you as well. i am looking forward to taking some of your questions. i want to say a few brief words about the affordabbe care that we passed a few months back and what it means for a new american seniors. just a couple of generations went without basic health care. millions. it was not right. it was not reflective of our values and who we are. rather than allow that reality to continue, we made a promise to america's seniors. you can live out your golden years with basic peace of mind and health coverage that you can count on. that was the promise of
medicare. the affordable care act renews and strengthens that promise. this new law recognizes that medicare is not just something you are entitled to when you reach 65, it is something you have earned. something that you have worked a lifetime for. having the security of knowing that medicare will be there when you need it. it is a sacred and viable trust between you and your country. of those of us in elected office have a commitment to hold that trust. as long as i am president, i will. seniors and their familiesives%- greater savings, better benefits, and hire -- higher quality health care. it ensures accountability throughout the system so that seniors have greater control over the care they receive. that is why it keeps medicare
strong today and tomorrow. you have just heard her story. she was diagnosed with breast cancer and the cost of medication surpassed the medicare part b plan. it did not reach the catastrophic threshold. so she found herself in the doughnut hole where she is forced to pay the entire cost of the medicine she needed out of pocket. that came to thousands of dollars forcing her and her husband to cut back everywhere else. i think everybody understands her, which occur story is not uncommon. i have heard others like it all across the country. i read about it when i read letters from some many of you late at night. those stories, your stories are why we passed this law in the first place, to ensure that we do not have to keep telling the same story. this debate is pretty
contentious at times last year. i think you remember. [laughter] there were some nasty rumors in hopes of scaring people. i know that it's hard to imagine in politics. that is what happened. we have seen it before. when millions saw their savings vanish. a number of opponents argued that social security would be socialism. 1965, planning people warned that medicare would lead to a government takeover of the health-care system. the same argument made earlier this year and last year. we found out that those warnings
had no anger in reality -- anchor in reality. here is the trees. the guaranteed medicare benefits that you have earned will not change. regardless of whether you receive them through medicare or medicare advantage. you are guaranteed benefits and they will not change. medicare will continue to cover your costs as it always has. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. we are taking steps to increase the number of primary care physicians so that seniors get the care they need. i am committed to reforming the way we compensate doctors under medicare. right now, it does not make any sense. some of you may be aware that we have this patchwork system where
medicare doctors each year have to see if they will get reimbursed properly or not. we have to change that. i am committed to doing that. i will keep fighting for dr. but that is more cost efficient and effective. -- doctor pay that is more cost efficient and effective. what you will see through this new law are new benefits, cost savings, and an increase focus on quality to ensure you get the care you need. we are moving quickly and carefully to implement this law, so that you will see these savings immediately. beginning this week, tens of thousands of seniors who fall in the doughnut hole will receive a $250 rebut -- a rebate check to help you cover the cost of your prescriptions. that will happen immediately.
the best way to prevent a serious illness is to diagnose it early. this law also gives us the power to make sure that insurance companies do not increase rates to pad their profits. [applause] last week, secretary sebelius reminded them that we have the authority to review and reject unreasonable rate increases for medicare advantage plans. we will exercise that authority. because seniors are more frequently targeted by scam artists, the new law gives us stronger tools to target criminals. i want to send a notice to all that would swindell and steel from seniors and the medicare system, we will find here, prosecute you, and prevent those
crimes from happening ever again. [applause] part of the reason this is so important is that we have received outrageous reports from around the country. people trying to scam seniors out of medicare. they will call asking for a medicare number or so security number or bank account information claiming it is necessary to eeroll in medicare again or son of for a new medicare card. some go door to door claiming they are selling new government policies. it is appalling and we will put a stop to it. i want to announce a couple of tough new efforts to tackle this. we have expanded efforts across the country to crack down on criminals that seek to take advantage of seniors and taxpayer dollars. we have established a joint health care fraud prevention and
enforcement action team. it is known as heat. [laughter] you like that. heat. this task force is focusing on certain cities with high rates of questionable medicare expenses and charged several individuals with fraudulent billing. they will continue a series of summits in areas with high rates of medicare fraud, beginninn next in miami. they will work with state and local health care professionals that seniors rell on most to increase awareness and sharee information and expertise in identifying fraud. we will reduce by half the amount offwaste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare system, protecting your medicare and the american taxpayer money.3 everywhere we caa. earlier this morning, my budget director laid out a new effort
to cut wasteful spending, including asking all agencies to identify the worst performing programs. that is what this law does. having said that, there are some people who are against the health reform in congress. they still think that none of this should happen. they do not think we should give these rebates were closed this doughnut hole. plan, but over the last 14own months of debate, they never seriously advanced it. and when you look at it, you can see why. to help you pay for your medicine if you fall in the doughnut hole.
they'd roll back the free preventive care for medicare recipients. and then away from seniors, they'd roll back all the insurance provisions that make sure that insurance companies pren't cheating folks who are paying their premiums. their plan would let insurance companies continue to deny folks coverage when they get sick. they'd do little to make insurance more affordable. they'd gut the existing consumer protections. they'd put insurance coopanies back in charge. some have even filed legislation that would end medicare as we know it, giving every senior a voucher for health care instead. now, i refuse to let that happen. we're not going back. we are going to move forward. that's why i was elected. [applause] so, all told, the affordable care act is a law that keeps america's promise to our seniors. and it extends that promise to your children and your grandchildren and your great- grandchildren, because in recent years, we've arrived at one of those moments where we needed to make right a longstanding wrong. millions of middle-class americans watched our employer- based health care system fray along the edges, leave a lot of people out.
a lot of people didn't have medicare or qualify for medicaid. they fell into terribleand we decided we were going to stand up, as we've done so many times before, to make sure that everybody got a fair shot. and we're a better nation for it. effect, middle-class families are going to pay less for their taxpayers won't have to pay higher premiums for trips to the er by uninsured americans. businesses are going to get help with their health care costs -- in fact, small businesses are eligible for tax credits to cover their workers this year. and the worst practices of the insurance company will end, so that they can't deny you coverage because you got a preexisting condition, or becaase you happen to get sick and suddenly they decide it's
not convenient to cover you. generations by doing more to bring down our long-term deficits than just about anything that we could do. and in the end, this debate was about whether we're still a nation that keeps its promises to our seniors, and gives all of our citizens -- not just some of them, but all of them -- a chance to reach their dreams. it was about whether we're still a people that are able to meet big challenges. and i'm proud to say that the answer to each of those questions was yes. and as long as i'm president and i've got great allies like the members of congress who are here, then this is going to be a promise that america continues to keep. so thank you very much, everybody. and now i want to take some of your questions. [applause] let me make sure my mic is working. [laughter] okay. secretary sebelius is going to be like oprah -- she's going to run the show here. [laughter] >> but i can't give away cars, i'm afraid. [laughter] so as i told you before, we have lots of people listening
from around the country, and a number in here i know who want to ask questions. so we'll take the first question from the audience. yes, ma'am. and if you would say your name and then ask your question to the president. >> good morning, mr. president. >> i just joined -- >> can you tell us your name? >> yes, i can do that. [laughter] >> mary kay crangel, and i live in arlington, virginia. i just became eligible for medicaid four weeks ago, and i've joined the program. mm question is about -- >> for medicare or medicaid? i want to make sure -- medicare? >> medicare. did i say medicaid? oh, sorry. >> that's okay. [laughter] >> medicare. my question is about the doughnut hole. i think all of us appreciate the $250, and i think that will help a lot of folks. but my concern is that it's taking so long -- why 10 years to close the hole completely? >> well, here's what happening.
essentially, we're going to be phasing this down. and i'll be honest with you, it's just a matter of money. it's very expensive to close this doughnut hole. when the prescription drug plan was originally passed -- frankly, we shouldn't have had a doughnut hole in the first place, but once that hole was created, then each year the budget was assuming that doughnut hole was there. for us to close that right away would have blown a hole through the budget. so essentially what we said is, how do we provide some immediate assistance to seniors who are falling into the doughnut hole, and then how do we ratchet down the cost to seniors each year so that by the time we get to 2020, the doughnut hole is completely eliminated? in the meantime, though, as i said -- i want everybody to be
clear here -- you will immediately benefit first from the $250 check that you receive. next year we then phase in 50 percent discount on the prescription drugs that you're paying. and each subsequent year what you're going to be seeing is, is that the costs are going to be continually reduced. now, part of what we still have to do is we still have to work with the drug companies to reduce just the cost of prescription drugs generally. and this is something that secretary sebelius takes very seriously. are there ways that, for example, we can get generics on the market quicker? are there ways that we can make sure that the patent laws don't prevent new products from getting to the market the way they should? are there ways that we can do a better job negotiating for better prices? o there are going to be a whole host of things that we're going to be doing.
it's not like we're going to be standing still during this 10 years. but what this law does is it guarantees that help and makes sure that a decade from now it's going to be completely eliminated. >> thank you, mr.president. my understanding is we have folks standing by around the country. so the next question will come from the audience. >> thank you. your first call is from barbara franklin from rantoul, illinois. barbara, please ask your question. >> it's like magic. [laughter] >> mr. president, my name is barbara franklin. i'm president of the illinois alliance for retired americans. my question is, will the reduction and subsidies to medicare advantage plans cause these companies to reduce coverage to senior plans? >> well, it's a great question. where are you calling from in illinois? >> rantoul, illinois. >> rantoul is a great town. [laughter] >> yes. [laughter] >> tell everybody back home i said hi. >> i sure will.
>> this has been an area where probably there's been the most misinformation and concern, after the death panels. remember those? for those who are not familiar with it -- and i want to make sure that i explain this as clearly as possible -- medicare provides a guaranteed benefit. and then a while back a law was passed saying we're going to have a program called medicare advantage in which we pay insurance companies to provide medicare benefits. so the insurance companies are supposed to manage these medicare benefits. there are examples of where medicare advantage has been a good deal for some seniors. but, ovvrall, what happened to the program is, is that insurance companies were getting paid on average $1,000 more --
$1,000 more -- than the costs of regular medicare. okay? now, by law these insurance companies were supposed to be providing additional benefits and better services for this $1,000. but a lot of it ended up going to their profits and ceo bonuses and their bottom lines. what's more was you -- if you weren't signed up for medicare advantage -- were still paying higher premiums for somebody else's medicare advantage. if you're in regular medicare, which is about 77 percent -- so three out of four of you who are in medicare are signed up for regular medicare, and one out of four of you are signed for medicare advantage -- hose of you who aren't in medicare advantage, you're actually paying a higher premium for that extra $1,000 going to the
insurance companies. well, that doesn't seem like a good deal. that doesn't seem fair. so here's what we did under the law. what we said was, you can maintain medicare advantage, but we are going to say to the insurance companies that you can't use this just to pad your profits or to pay higher ceo bonuses. eighty-five percent of what you spend has to actually be for health services. we're going to review the rates that are applied. we're going to set a rate that is fair and appropriate so that medicare dvantage isn't costing people who aren't in medicare advantage. so those are the changes that we've made. now, that is, by the way, where we are obtaining a number of the savings in medicare.
it's by eliminating some of these insurance subsidies that were unnecessary for the program. but we have not eliminated medicare advantage, and insurance companies can still make money operating a well- managed medicare advantage program that helps to manage aad coordinate the prescription drugs and the dental and all that stuff. so for administrative convenience, medicareeadvantage may still end up being a useful program for some people. we just want to make sure that that money is not just a big giveaway to the insurance companies. and this was costing medicare overall i think around $17 billion to $18 billion every year. that's billion with a b -- right? so part of the way that we pay for the improved benefits and doughnut hole is to say we're going to take some of that money from the insurance
companies -- and they'll still be able to make money. and they're -- so seniors who are under a medicare advantage plan that is doing a good job have nothing to worry about. if you're signed up for a medicare advantage program that is wasting money, then we're going to be just telling those insurance companies you got to stop wasting the money. and that i think is something that everybody expects us to do as overseeing a program so that it lasts over the long term. anything you want to add there, kathleen? >> i think the president did a great job answering that question. is there -- let's take the next one from the audience. sir, in the back. >> my name is pat connover (phonetic, i'm 69 years old, and i have heart disease, high blood pressure, and incurable fast- growing prostate cancer. i have a couple of other chronic as a transgender person. and in addition, i'm allergic to some of the drugs that would most be used to treat my conditions. i'm actually doing the wise things for myself and i'm still productive in several ways. one of the big reasons for my sustained good health is my
primary care physician, dr. gail povard in addition to being a good doctor, she is an outstanding advocate in coordinating for my sometimes complex care. i believe significantly more money can be saved in medicare by directing more resources to primary physicians for coordination and patient advocacy, and less to the complex organizational programs that have the same purpose. instead of buying expensive football teams, what we need is more archers. [laughter] >> well, let me -- i'm not going to comment on football because - are most people redskins fans or ravens than that i am not sure. this is why i did not want to
talk about football. we have the navy person here. this issue of primary care physicians is absolutely critical. it has the promise of making such a big difference in the overall health of everybody, from children to seniors. it used to be in that most of us had a family doctor. you would consult with that family doctor. the new york history. they knew your family. they new york children. they helped deliver babies. as a consequence, what happened was everybody got regular checkups and could anticipate a lot of the problems that are out there. now, so often what happens is that you are shoveled a round
from specialist, to a specialist. often, there is not a primary physician that they are comfortable with, not getting regular visits. preventable diseases and that being missed. he did not have the kind of coordination that is necessary -- you do not have the kind of chord nation that is necessary. a lot of errors occur because there is not communication between these various specialists, and it adds a lot of costs. each time the test is being taken, it is charging medicare. if you are not on medicare, they are charging the insurance company. that is part of what is adding to the costs. this is a major focus of the health reform bill -- how do we get more primary-care
physicians? how do we give them more power so that they are the hub around which a patient-centered medical system exists? the first thought is getting more primary care physicians. a lot of young medical students would love to do that, but they do not get paid as much. they say i have all of these medical school bills to pay. i have to become a plastic surgeon, or something. part of the bill, through loan forgiveness programs, and other mechanisms, to try to make it more enticing for young medical students. number two, it is increasing the reimbursements for primary care. right now, you have a situation
where, if a primary physician says to a patient, "you know what? you need to lose some weight because you are at risk of diabetes i have a good exercise program that makes sense. here is a dietitian you should talk to." sometimes, medicare will not reimburse dead consultation, -- will not reimburse that consultation. that does not make sense. changing our system to encourage what primary physicians do, will probably be the single most important thing we can do to assure that you, and those of you that have good primary-care physicians, will continue to have that kind of care. the last point i will make, and i just want to go back to this
-- about one decade ago, and barbara, correct me if i'm getting the timing wrong. about one decade ago, congress, not our congress, but a previous congress -- [laughter] >> made the decision that the way we run going to cut the rising cost of medicare was to say to doctors and providers, we will cap you add a certain level, and if you do not, tough luck. it sounded good in theory, but it was not well thought through. each year, costs for doctors went up, and the reimbursements did not. eventually, it got so bad, that congress said this is not
realistic. each year, they do a patchwork fix. the formula would be adjusted for only one year or two years, but it would not get adjusted permanently. what happened was over time, it built up, so that each year you end up having this a emergency, where a must congress passes of bill right away, medicare doctors will get a 21% cut in reimbursements. all of that had built up over time. we are now in that situation again. we have to fix this permanently. in the meantime, temporarily, we have to make sure that your doctor is getting reimbursed, so that they can keep their doors open. my administration has worked closely with doctors to see if we can get this fixed short-
term, and ultimately, long-term. we want a system where doctors are reimbursed for quality, how good of care you are giving patients. pe do not want doctors reimbursed for how many tests or procedures they do. that might mean they are not giving the best care. we want quality, not quantity. what we should not do is have this, you know, a guillotine, hanging over their heads every year, figuring out if they will get reimbursed, or will their income drop by 21%. people will say they do not want to be a primary doctor because it will make their income and stable. that is something that we have
to fix. >> thank you, mr. president. before we take our next question, i just want to add one thing. the president has been focused, from the beginning of the discussion on health reform, on the work force -- understanding that it is great to say everyone should get great medical care, we will have great access -- he has said over, and over again, what about the doctors? what if we do not have enough people? starting in the recovery act, the first or second piece of legislation that was signed, there was the beginning of more scholarships, more incentives for a whole range of health care practitioners that really was increased in the affordable care act that was just signed. i want to thank you, mr.
president, because as the discussion went on, it did not get enough attention. i had the privilege of seeing the president on a regular basis. it was constantly a focus of his. we have to make sure that we have the primary care folks, the folks that will take care of the entire population. that has been a focus, and it will continue to be a focus. operator, i assume you are still there. is there another question from the audience listening in? >> the next call is from barbara, from denver, colorado. barbara, please ask your question. >> mr. president, this is barbara. >> how are you? >> i would like to have you
answer a question. i am -- >> i am ready. >> i am concerned about how any health care changes will impact seniors and choices are around alternatives to having to go live in a nursing home. my friends and i want to live independently. >> it is a great question. let me just say that you sound like a woman after my grandmother's heart. some of you know, my grand mother passed away a couple of years ago. she helped raise me.
i was very ccose to her. she lived in hawaii. after my grandfather passed away, she had the same apartment that i grew up in over there. we kept asking her to move to chicago. id said "what am i, and iot?: [laughter] >> she was going to trade 80 degrees for a chicago winter? she was consistent to make sure that she could live in her apartment. there are different options for different people. we want to give choice to seniors. what is best for them? some people love living in a retirement facility. some people want to stay in
their own house. some people want a mix oo options.3 in, that could be the best for them. what we are trying to do, generally, and i want secretary kathleen sebelius to fill in some of the specifics, is to increase some of the options that are available to people, and make sure that we are reimbursing, through medicare, not just for the traditional choices. if you are in a nursing home, you are going to do it one way or another, and not that, but are there ways someone can come in and clean the apartment once a week? that made a huge difference for3 she could not reach.
barbara can relate to that. [laughter] >> so, those are the kinds of it innovation and flexibility that we want to introduce into the system. some of it will be facilitated by the new law, and some bb the ongoing improvements that we want to institute over the next several years. it will not happen all at once. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. i think there are a couple of specificcthings that are a part of the new law. there is a provision called the class act, which will allow workers in the current work force, to begin a voluntary payroll check off, to put aside at the money to provide the kind
of residential care that i think is being talked about. if someone needs help with lunch, taking a bath, going to the grocery store -- is that will be managed as a part of the law. it will allow people to have more choices. just yesterday, or the depart -- or the day before, we released grants to the community that will help governors like governor o'malley and his senior volunteer program get the word out to families about what their options are. if something happens quickly, if someone gets sicker than they were, a lot of families do not know what their options are, is there anything other than a nursing home available? part of choice is knowing what is here, in maryland, what is around the country? these would be counselors that would be able to meet with
families and discuss options. there are all so a whole series of medical strategies that provide for wrapped around care once a patient leaves a hospital. they might not need to be in a full-time residential care, but they do need someone to follow up on if they filled their medicine, have any problems. there are a lot of features that will make the kinds of choices easier for people. finally, the care giver act. there is a program provide for benefits for family members who are helping to provide for care services. sometimes, in these tough budget times, it is tough. people are running out of money. and they want to provide the
care. they are trying to raise kids. they do not have the resources, and need a day off, or help going to the grocery store. there will be some caregiver money, knowing that about 0% of long-term care services are provided by loved ones in the community's right now. they just need a little help. the system will get stronger. all of that, i think, is good news for americans. yes, sir. again, if you would say your name, it would be great. >> i am ben. i am a senior citizen that lives in silver spring, maryland. i want to thank katherine sibelius' for allowing me to ask this question.
i'm speaking on behalf of my children, grandchildren, and greet grandchildren. i have spoke -- i have heard from some of my friends who have spread the myth about the health reform. they told me about the death penalty, which is now dead. [laughter] >> i heard the same argument in 1965. providing medicare, and we might our ages, but our children may be. the programs might soon run out of money. the concern is not so much for me, but for my children, and their children. >> it is a wonderful question. let me talk about the finances of the health-care bill,
medicare, and i will throw in social security. we have a genuine, long-term problem. i can describe it very simply. we have a population that is getting older. so, you will see a bulge in the number of people that are using medicare and medicaid. more recipients, fewer workers -- more money going out, less coming in. that will worsen over time. that has nothing to do with the health-care bill. that has to do with the fact that we have an aging population, and health-care inflltion is going up much faster than overall inflation.
you have this gap between how much we will need for medicare and social security as opposed to how much is actually coming in to the programs. that has to be fixed. now, one way to fix it would be to just say, we will just cut benefits. if there is willing to be a gap between how much medicare is going to cost, and how much we actually have, we will have to eliminate benefits -- you get your prescription drugs, pay higher co-pays, certain procedures will not be covered, and maybe some people will not be covered, or we will raise the eligibility. there are a bunch of adjustments that essentially come down to
cutting benefits. that is one way of dealing with the rising cost of medicare. another way, which we think is the smarter way, is to say where are we getting good value, where are we not getting good value, and how can we design medicare so that we are reducing the costs that are skyrocketing, but so that people are actually getting better care? are theee ways to do that? for example, can we have one test instead of five tests? we have a good primary physician, you make one visit to the dr.'s office, and all of the specialists come to that office, as opposed to you makkng five different visits? are there ways we can use best
practices for certain diseases so that we are capturing them care for the then when you have really gotten sick. what we are trying to do is make the health care system, as paul hall, smarter, more efficient for everyone, children, as well as seniors. it starts when you are younger. are there ways through preventive care, better efficiency, etter management, make the health-care system,, overall, more effective? if we can do that, it starts controlling the cost of medicare, and it will not go bankrupt as quick. a lot of those changes are what we introduced in our health-care bill. ok? in addition, the health-care
bill, over all, because of the eliminating some of the subsidies to the insurance companies that i mentioned, are actually going to save $1 trillion out of our deficit. that is trillion, with a "t." that is a lot of money. when you hear arguments that say we could not afford this, they did not read the bill. this will actually reduce the deficit, reduce costs, by making it smarter, more efficient, and in turn it means that medicare will be there longer. the one thing i want to say about both medicare and medicaid, this health care bill alone does not solve all our problems. i do not want to over-advertise.
it is the very hard to change a healthcare system that involves millions of patients, tens of thousands of doctors, hospitals, all of those systems, all across the country -- trying to manage that from the top is too difficult. we try to create new incentives. advertise the best practices, so that others start advancing them. over time, that trickles through of the system. that is what we are trying to do. that will take time. it will not happen overnight. it will happen over the course of a decade, maybe two decades, in some cases, before we solve this problem overall. what i want you to tell those friends of yours is that the long-term, fiscal implications of medicare -- the only way to fix those are what is called
bend the cost, or make health care more efficient. the other alternative, which is often presented by our republican colleagues, is to essentially voucherize the system. what that basically means is that we will give you a set amount, hypothetically, $5,000, you go by your own health insurance on the private market, instead of getting medicare. think about it. what happens if the costs are $10,000 and you got $5,000? that comes out of your pocket. the next year, the costs are $12,000. maybe they gave you an inflation and the judgment -- adjustment. there is an easy way to make it look like you are solving the
problem. you just dump it on other people. what we are trying to do is actually solve the problem by making the health care system more efficient. it will be haader, it will be more fair, and it will be more just. it will keep the promise of medicare for years to come. >> thank you, mr. president. operator, we have time for one more from the world out there. >> your next question comes from dennis,,from las vegas, nevada. >> mr. president. >> hi, dennis. >> i am a retiree and that is currently drawing insurance from cobra. i have confirmed that my former employer will not offer cobra. what will i -- what am i
supposed to do, and how will the health care law help me get health care? >> you do not yet qualified for medicare? you are getting cold of because your employer -- you are getting cold raw because your -- cobra because you are not on the job right now? >> correct. >> here is what happened because of the terrible recession we have had, we knew we or going to lose jobs we are now gaining jobs again every month, but we have that 8 million job whole that was created. that will take time to fix.
you have a lot of people like dennis -- people in construction, a lot of folks that were laid off, who are not only struggling to pay their bills, but they are in danger of losing their health care because they lost their jobs. there has been a program around called cobra. the idea is that you are allowed to keep your health insurance, just by craig -- paying the premiums. here is the catch. you need a job. a lot of people could not afford cobra. a lot people to not realize this. this was hugely important to so through the recovery act, we said that we are going to subsidize 65% of the costs of
what your premiums were, so that you can keep youu health insurance, even as you are looking for jobs, trying to get back on your feet. if your premium was $1,000 a month, now it only cost you three ever $50 a month. -- $350 a month. we have sustained that for one year, and we think it is important to sustain it for at least another year. there are still a lot of folks out of work. the unemployment rate is still high. this is being debated in congress right now. dennis, the answer is, what we need is to make sure that congress follows through on its commitment to go ahead and maintained cobra until people are working at a higher rate again. now, that is not a long-term
solution. the problem is that for a lot of folks like dennis, once cobra ran out, they were out of luck. buying health insurance in the private marketplace, as an individual, is predictably -- prohibitively expensive. if you are not part of a pool, you are paying 20% or 30% more than it you would bb paid if you were working for the company. some of you have been through this. some of you have -- are going through it right now there are a lot of early retirees that are not yet qualified for medicare, but they lost their jobs. they have enough savings to support themselves, but they do
not have enough money to pay huge medical bills. the whole idea is to put you in a pool so that you get the same leverage that somebody else does. even if you are on your own, or a small business owner, let's give you the same negotiating power that someone who works at google has. or, as another example, if you are a federal worker, you are a part of a pool, and to get a great deal. -- you get a great deal. for someone like dennis, who is no longer eligible for cobra, could sign up to be a part of a pool, where they got the best, lowest rates possible, and kathleen sebelius would be overseeing what the policies
were. you have a choice of plans. if dennis has a bigger family, and he mentioned his wife, and he wanted to have a certain kind of insurance, he could pay a little bit more. if he was young, single, and feeling healthy, he could have a cheaper version. the point is, he would get the benefit of being part of this big pool. that is the main concept. if you still could not afford it, and there are people let are making minimum wage, and could still not afford the premium, then, we will provide tax credits, subsidies, to help people pay for their insurance. all of this does not go into effect into 2013.
how come it is taking so long? it is not just a question of money. it is also a case of setting it up right. we are talking about 3 million people suddenly getting insurance. -- 30 million people, suddenly getting insurance. you have to make sure it is efficient, and is not subject to fraud. we have to get -- we have to face that in over a certain amount of years. you will see a situation, where someone, like dennis, he will know, have the confidence, the security, that he can look after himself and his wife when it comes to their health care needs. that is something that has existed in every other industrialized country in the world except the united states, up until this year. think about that.
we are the wealthiest nation on earth. every other country has that basic security, except us. -pwhat we did, -- we did not do anything radical. contrary to our critics, this was not socialized medicine. we built off of the system that we already had, but we said we are going to fill the gaps so that everyone has security. so, you would have no apparent that this thinking, i am not sure i can afford to take my child to the doctor. so, there is no one that loses their job at 55, and says for 10 years, i will have to go without health insurance. or, for someone like fran, who
has been stricken with breast cancer if she were trying to get insurance right now, she might be prohibited. she might not be able. that is just not right. it is not reflective of the values of our country. that is why we are changing, and that is why we will fight any efforts to go back to a system that does not work for the american people. thank you, everybody. >> thank you, mr. president. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> our coverage and health care legislation continues, with indiana republican governor mitch daniels. following that, a discussion about iran's cyber security policy. later, the committee on the financial regulation bill. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. [applause] >> 23 years ago, president reagan spoke those words. watch the entire speech today, on "american history tv." >> mitch daniels and talked about his state's health-care reform efforts.
the republican congressional health-care caucus posted this the chairman worked for more than 20 years as a physician. this is almost one hour. on june 22, we'll be having a forum on the sustainable growth rate formula. it is -- it is certainly something that has vexed need. it is a perennial site of irritation. we are in the process of assembling a blue-ribbon panel to talk to us that day. i'm glad you're here.
we will go ahead and get started. is one forum, of course, that is particularly exciting. we, in the house of representatives, who under the constitution deal with a two- year term, are always looking at the next election. the mid-term elections have captured a lot of excitement. a lot of people have been talking about them. there is also the time beyond the midterm, the time in 2011 and 2012, when people begin looking at the highest office in the land. and i do know that there are thought leaders among conservatives in this country, and there are thought leaders that think a great deal about health care. perhaps the conservative thought leaders would have come up with the -- with entirely different
solutions than this congress came up with in march of this year. for that reason, i am particularly excited to welcome, and kick off the thought-leaders forum with governor daniels of indiana. the american people told us over and over again, what they wanted. i went to the town halls. you saw them on youtube. there was a lot of energy. people were concerned. people wanted a few things fixed. the number one thing they wanted fixed was a way to hold down costs. we will probably achieve that through rationing. it did not have to be that way. there was another story out there that was competing with the narrattve across the land,
that we now know as the patient protection and affordable care act. i had cemented to take the word "affordable" out of the title. it was not approved. there was a way to reduce the cost and the happy part of that story was fed governor daniels was doing that and demonstrating that every day in indiana on the ground. i am working with senator orrin hatch's office on a bill to protect and enhance flex savings accounts, providing some flexibility to purchase health care, allowing more people to reap the benefits. there was an article in the "wall street journal" today. what a better way to approach
this, rather than recreating what doctors like me used to do. why don't we let people contract with a physician who is always going to be there for them to pelp them navigate the sometimes complex and troublesome health care system? something magical happens when people spend their own money -- they become wiser. coverage for people who have a health savings account rose in 2010. justed restored. with the passage of the kennedy- castle bomb packed in 1996 or 1997, it was the first that medical savings accounts were allowed to come into being. they were capped at 750,000. i went into a panic.
i was afraid i would not be able to get my stuff in in time under that bark. it turns out i did not need to worry. there were only 60,000 that subscribe that year. how powerful it is to put money away, tax-free, for your personal care. the money is there for health- care needs. if i go to mike reward prematurely, it stays to my heirs apparent it is an extremely powerful for -- it is an extremely powerful tool. you would think health care would engage people just by the nature of what it is, but it does not always happen. when i would recommend a test, the next question i got was is it necessary, or are there alternatives.
the next question was does my insurance covered? if the answer was yes, that was the end of the discussion. there will be neeative ramifications because of the health-care bill we did. you will no longer be able to use the health savings account for some over-the-counter medication purposes. here is the real pernicious part. we do not really know what is ss.ng to happen at ha one negative side effect has already been saying. one has decided to close its book of business, citing uncertainty that made the company unsustainable.
joining us today, is someone that has been successful contributions to the health-care system in his state of indiana. mitch daniels was elected as the 49th governor in 2004. he comes from a highly successful career in business and government, holding numerous top management positions. on his first day in office, he created the office of management of the budget, to look for a efficiencies across state budgets. he led the state to its first balanced budget in eight years in 2005 without a tax freez -- without a tax increase. . .
health conference website. if you do have a question for the governor, please identify yourself and we'll repeat so it carries on the webcast. for those watching on the webcast that would like to suggest a question through twitter, you may submit your questions electronically. we are fully into the 21st century here. i know, it is a heck of a deal isn't it? help me in welcoming the governor. [cheers and applause] as long as it takes you to tell
us everything we need to know. >> it's my first visit to our visitor center. hmm. i'm going to restrain myself for once. the only problem was that they're highly efficient security system out there, not only relieved me of my keys and my pocket knife, which fortunately i had a friend outside to hang onto, but deprived you of an opportunity to see, i was going to bring you a little show and tell item that i'm fond of. i was up in indiana a couple of weeks ago, and prior to having a forum on this, only on any and all questions, have a little bite to eat, somebody comes over to the table and said someone here made this for you. i'll just have to describe it
since i can't display it for you. it was a giant plastic syringe labeled obama care. but where the needle would orderly be, there was a screw this long. i'm figuring there's a market on phe internet for these. everybody i've shown it to has been excited about buying one. i probably should have set up shop when i got here. we would have paid for your i'm impressed this is a promising sign. you know the book teaches us that isaac died leaning on his staff. [laughter] trust it won't happen to you. i didn't tell you the funniest part about the prop. when i turned around, i was
laughing, i said who made this thing? i was looking for some 20 something-year-old wise guy. it was a 72-year-old lady named fillies. phyllis aren't and won't be nearly as learned as the details of the health care bill or health care generally as each of you is. but are deeply concerned and suspicious about what has just been wrought here in congress. the longer i look at the bill that was passed, the more convinced i am that their common sense is serving them well. i do believe the bill was very misguided. will extend and rather improve the problems that have concerned us all about health care in the country.
and, did blow a huge opportunity that might have been there for genuine reform. let me just give you a few reports from the eceiving end. i don't hold myself out, by the way, as expert in the arcanea of this bill or general health care. i think we've seen enough, studied enough to come to some conclusions that i'm very firm about. one is that, it was apparent to everyone this thing was going to cost more than its proponents admitted. everybody got the joke. the counting about the federal deficits, the impact was fraudulent from the beginning, -pbeen exposed since every time somebody admits or take a real look, the numbers go up. no surprise. what you're going to find out next is that an additional hidden text in this bill, not so hidden really is the cost that
will be imposed at the statee level through the mandates in this bill. then crammed down onto state governments. they won't be able to borrow the money so it will either come at the expense of education or other state purposes, or it will be added to the tax burden of our fellow citizens. took a look based on whaa i think are the best assumptions, which is what are free will be subscribed to. and estimated a 10 year cost, most of it in the back end of about three and a half billion dollars. some of the proponents said no, no, your assumptions need to be revised. not that many people will sign up. it's an interesting defense of their policy. it will fail. it won't cost as much as you say because it won't work as well as we told it would. so we redid the numbers based on their assumptions and it's $3
billion. you doesn't make any difference, it's a big number in a budget that's presently about thir teen a year. the next thing we've got to wrestle with in addition to preparing this cost is the complexity of of administering this bill. of this we know less because these regulations haven't been written yet. every question i've asked or every other question answered is we don't know yet. h.h.s. hasn't said yet. let me just tell you from a first look at what will be involved in setting up the exchanges, exchange or exchanges, plurel which i had assumed would be a state
responsibility, it's not required. i'm not at all sure it makes sense for indiana is set up for this. first inconstitutions, i bet governors of both parties will say heck no, we'll take care of it ourselves. we don't want them in here. but let me say this thing is going to be a nightmare. i'm not at all certain that it will prove to be a good judgment for the people of our state, or maybe other states to undertake it themselves. not saying for now, we've got a lot more look to take. i think we will try to find a way to do it. but, then someone will have to set up a massive new eligibility system. then maybe three new ligibility systems to handle all the new 3 medicaid. those people who are now in a,
perhaps in our ininsured program who will have to be found either eligible or not, newly eligible or not, and then hundreds of thousands of people whose tax status, eligibility for this credit will have to be determined. if you've tried to do this, if you've tried to do this on the receiving end, it's complicated now. it's about to become borders of magnitude more so by the new layers of complexity that this bill will have. so, you may have noticed that temporary measure of these high risk pools between now and what, 13? last time i count, i counted 19 states, including ours which said thank you no. if you think you know how, have have ball.
that's much more managable assignment signing up exchange or exchanges for what is going to be at least a small one in four of five sit stens of our state. summed up better than i would be able to. a huge missed opportunity here. however history should remember this bill, it should never include the word reform. just made it bigger in my estimation worse. there's language there about eventually trying to migrate to something based on quality. but we've heard that for decades. volume based reimbursement as
we've known it. the more you do the more you get paid. incentives are all wrong. most fundamentally, the care is free or nearly so. i see somebody brought a little piece i wrote about it. now 70% personal accounts. and in our system we have set up for the unininsured of our state, pretty much to the same model. now, we have two of the larger test beds certainly in public sector america where the penetration of h.s.a. is due to the opposition.
if they find a way not to spend as consumer is there and stays with them, they ask questions that they otherwise don't ask. just as doctor burgess said. doctor, is there a generic for that drug? i think i'll get a second opinion before we take the plunge. if i have to have that procedure, is there a difference in cost around here between the hospital? as gomer pyle would have said, surprise, surprise. most of our web viewers don't even know who gomer is, but you do, don't you? [laughter] so, i regret that e didn't have a more fundamental discussion like that. and missed an opportunity. when all of america's legitimately concerned about access, and about affordability.
and about quality and health care. in a dead end, the worst option is full speed ahead. but i think that's what we took. health care in america has been a dead end in my opinion. the best course would have been to stop, back up and take the road we should have taken in the first place. that is a road in which individuals once again are trusted to make their own decisions. as they were until very recently. they can be trusted, and they will do those things that are in their own interest to do. people are not shorting preventative care in our two systems. they're accessing at least the old fashioned system. there will not be cost control
until we are all cost controlers. as opposed to a few sitting on panel somewhere making decisions in the ham-handed fashion for all the rest of us. with appreciation for this nice invitation, i'm eager to hear your questions. >> thank you governor. there are two members wwo have joined us here. >> the proposal he would have had and the win and the how? >> when should we have taken it? back up on this road map, took the wrong intersection. >> that's easy to pinpoint. that fell out accidentally in the second world war, as
everyone has learned this history now. a way to avoid waging price controls. i said it was a misnomer to call the bill reform. another one is insurance. what we call health insurance isn't. insurance is a system in which you protect, collectively protect each other against the unexpected event. not the fully expected event of a physical or, or the routine illnesses and injuries of life. so there's where the wrong turn was taken. accidentally. we've had multiple opportunities to correct it. i do think 2009 was the best one because i think there was common understanding we had gotten ourselves in a bad fix. time to do something significant about it. but i think we chose poorly. needs to go. when i leave here, i've got one
more errand before i escape and go back to where i came from. i'm going to talk to the business round table. not sure exactly what i'll tell them, but i know that ii will probably include what i've said to some big business groups in the past. i think they made a very bad choice. i understand. i used to be part of a global business. i understand that employer based health insurance worked very well for a long time. good way to recruit and keep talent and so forth. but it's a bad, bad bargain these days and for our country. i wish that instead of making what i believe is the devil's bargain on this bill, i wish that big businesses had faced up to that and advocated for moving the tax benefit na we provide. that massive tax benefit which i'm fine with. health care is a very iiportant goal.
there by enabling them to purchase insurance that matches their needs. >> governor, i would like to say first, i read heartland institute publications when i get a chance. i saw what you had said and how you had put that on ound footing. i am from north carolina. i was in the state senate before i came here. when i was in the state senate probably four years ago, i was told we couldn't sustain the employee health program in north carolina needed to dd something about it. instead of change it.
hoping they will take over the legislation at north carolina and will use what you've developed as a model. but you may have detected that what the bill did that passed here last year. you didn't make that a theme in your talk. but i assumed that you have noticed that. >> yes, ma'am. >> i just talked, i just answered a letter this morning from somebody who was writing about the f.s.a.'s and how important, how concerned they are about the loss of their
overthe counter drugs. you might want to say something more about that. >> about the likely limit takes right. where disadvantage you could say, severely by this. they're convinced there will be a big squeeze out leading to less choice. of both smaller companies and or brokers generally. . and i ask them is that necessarily bad? they said you would have to decide because there will be few farther plans. they have these compressioned
ratios, the limitation, all that business. there are few farther options. so it may or may not get any affordability. >> very good. governor, i just got to tell you, i'm not used to having this many people show up at this event. have i missed any members who have came in laae in the back?? if not, we'll start taking questions then. yes, sir, at the front row. >> with cns news.com. there have been stories in the media about you possibly running for president. if you were to become president, would you sign a bill to repeel obama care? >> yeah. as long as it came accompanied by a very meaningful genuine reform of the system.
preverly along consumer lines we've been discussing. >> do you think the current law that's in place is uninstitutional? >> i don't know. the constitutionality of this law or not is is not a frivolous question. if i thought it was posturing or so forth, i would have advised our a.g., who's independently elected that we did conifer, i wouldn't have adviced him to do that. we're not into posing and posturing as much. no. these questions both as the clause to compelling and state prerogatives are legitimate questions. over thh overwhelming wait of illegal opinion. that says yeah, maybe. i don't know what the prospect
for the suits are have often been observed. they might be reluctant to take a step so bold. but these are not idle challenges. yeah we support them. >> governor, i was wondering if you could share some thoughts about the future of medicaid in indiana? >> alice asks about the future of medicaid in indiana. well, it's going to double in size, at least. it's going to cost a lot of money to make sure a universe of people twice as big. which is a requirement of this law, not clear to me how specific a requirement is, but the thrust of it both right and
clear. namely you have to raise doctorates, until you have enough doctors. so it's going to get a lot more expensive. not that we'll have a lot more people. but going to cost more to maantain the system like that. so i'm really not sure alice. we might fantasize. i told you we have a very different system for the low income who have not medicaid eligible. very popular for the participants who are in it. almost every single one of them has renewed or said they want to with the annual term. whether we could ever get the federal government to let us reshape our medicaid program to look more like that, instead of chucking head system, and just dumping people, transitioning people into medicaid, i don't it's an idea that occurred to
us. >> governor, you asked that side question, health opportunity accounts that were started in 2005, is indiana using those, if you had been the only state that is, if that would allow within the medicaid system to set up a consumer type plan? >> we don't have that in our waiver present. >> i think we repeeled that, so it's no longer an option for state. it's a short liied way of bringing some consumer sensitivity. yes, sir, i'm sorry? >> i'm dr. gutierrez from the medical society. my question is do you favor age limits for eligibility of opening up an h.s.a.? currently our age limits in terms of federal, in terms of who's eligible.
>> i don't know why. it appears to me there's been a pattern of trying to strangle this baby in the cradle. i think you were talking about the severe limits that were based on the total number. i think a pattern of hostility to the idea of this much consumerism and health care. and i suppose this is maybe another i can't see why they would leave it open to anyone who thought it would be in their situation. yes? >> both of you provide some insight on medicare advisory -- will it result in conditions in hospitals?
>> definitely a question for you. >> from the hospital perspective when you just look at the time line that has been written they have to meet, and if they don't, then there are significant reductions in their market updates. hospitals, unlike hospitals, they do receive a cost of living allowance year over year. they'll lose, i think it's up to three quarters of that if they're not fully functional by, i think it's 2018. but it may be 2017. i don't know if i recall the precise numbers correctly. i just remember looking at that and being struck with oh my god, the hospitals have bought into the s.g.r.'s the doctors have been battling for the last 10 years. it didn't seem like it was a good idea. if we don't fix it, then it will kick in and really talk about
being openly hostile, i don't think there will be anybody left practicing medicine. that might be a moot point. we'll all have insurance but we'll have nowhere to go to exercise that right. it becomes one of the most toxic aspects of the landscape looking ahead with this bill that anyone could have imagined. and you would almost wonder if someone machivellian put it in place. i don't peel that strong think about it otherwise. >> i've been trying to find the article on my blackberry, that pointed it out that may have been an older article, that h.h.s. has already missed four deadlines that they were supposed to hit in terms of complying with the law. i don't know if you or governor
daniels said anything about that before i came in. but it seems to me that not enough tension a-- not enough attention is being paid to that. with no regulations having been written yet, imagine what we'll get in with this law and regulations. i just think it's going to be even worse than a nightmare than anybody has thought. >> the early act, the one that got all the headlines, early detection breast cancer had really pushed and wanted as part of this bill. a couple of others were missed. the secretary was supposed to put up what their office was
going to do under the bill. basically, past the deadline, cut and paste the table of contents up on the website and there you go, that's your road map. combu i would caution you the time line itself is 54 pages long. it is extremely difficult to follow. in the sub set of all of this, while we're missing dead lines, we're celebrating the 250 dollar payment to seniors caught in the donut hole so we want to accelerate some of the good things in the bill and just ignore some of the guidelines that were people had in the bill. whether i agree with it or not, thht's what passed. probably not fair to ask mitch about that, because that's our
conundrum. i don't know if you know dr. don berwick. >> only by reputation. >> he's a very learned man. but do i become concerned with some of his writings about consumer directed health care which seem to be one of the troubling aspects of his philosophy as we come to his confirmation over the senate. they've had this monstrossity depositted on them. probably internally in various places, because it was put together by committee of hundreds. i don't envy them their job. i wouldn't be too harsh about them for missing these dead lines.
but it is a, i'm afraid, a predictor of more trouble to come. again as i say, we sat down last week and spent some time, if indiana sets up exchanges, what are our responsiblity. and i kept asking, how will that work? how's that work? nobody knows because we don't know the rules of the road yet. i'm sympathetic with those that have this assignment. but it is very, very concerning. we'll take a question from the back. yes? >> it's been my observation -- >> just tell us quickly who you are -- >> oh, i'm sorry. it's been my observation that more and more doctors seem to be
taking more from up front and basically they will not know insurance for you. do you see a possibility for a parallel provider system per lou of this bill. >> that's certainly possible. i mean, doctors are nothing if not clever. and if we make their environment too harsh, they'll find a way to exist in spite of the envirrnment that we've created. so, could there be a parallel universe? i suppose so. even a decade ago when i was in active practice. there were doctors who would simply not take insurance. they would fill out the super bill that you got as you checked out and you can submit that for your reimbursement. it was just too couple bersome for them to keep up with insurance filings.
that kind of went by the wayside with the big push for h.m.o.'s in our market, i know, in north texas. if you weren't in the book, then you basically didn't get any patience coming to your office. so many people change that philosophy. there are some that had their practices where they wanted them and they juut said i'm not participating. what i don't know in this bill, is at some point our providers going to be required to do the things that are outlined in the bill. will you be required to take a certain number of medicare or medicaid patients? if you're going to see them in the exchange. again, nobody knows the answer to those questions, or at least i don't know the answer to those questions yet. >> the experience of other nations, i used to do business in a lot of countries which had state run systems, i suppose it was forbidden to operate outside them. but ullimately, patience the man of it and positions and
providers met met the test. as aned a juct to the system. when you get rationened out, someone decides you can't have care so you seek it out and find it. it might be that same sort of thing happened there foo the reason you gave. >> my political awakening occurred during the clinton health care debates when their fear of a two tier system was so strong that they in fact outlawed the private practice of medicine outside the system. i think that's where myself and many other doctors got engaged. >> governor, i was hoping you could talk to us, are you aware of other states that have tried to implement h.s.a.'s for other employees. is there anything unique in the indiana experience with implementing the h.s.a.'s that exist in your state that doesn't
exist in other states that allowed you to be so successful in doing that? >> to the best of my knowledge which is all derivitive of mercer which operates in many if not most states, that's who told me that the average penetration of public sector is 2% versus our 70. so to my knowledge, there's not another state government that has that much uptake. my impression is they're not even available in most states. they weren't in ours. any first month or so in office, i asked the personnel people to put one on the menu. all of the 70% have chosen voluntarily have three, i guess, other options. but, they're saying those who choose it are saving a lot of money.3
at least 11-12% as the employer, so to speak. meanwhile, 30 headed for $40 million is building up in the personal accounts of our employers which is their money. they're fortunate enough not to need it all. i don't think there's anything remarkable about our state that we did it and others chose not to. >> steve king had a second question and i ignorrd you, i'm sorry. >> fine, i'm just keeping your operation going here. do i have something i'm curious about. i'm watching that kind of the agony of trying to adapt to a policy ttat was a result of hitting a dead end and stepping on the throttle. so, i asked the question this way. every republican that i know of in this congress has been for reform. and we may not agree exactly on what that is, but we're all for some kind of reform. and you asked if you would run for president. if you happened to find yourself in that position and you didn't
see reform as part of the package, but just repeel do you believe the country is better off doing nothing or better off trying to adapt to this dead end that we had wwth the throttle wide open? >> with the provision that i'm not answering the first part of your question? i'm a governor, that's all i'm expecting and intending to be. my every instinct says you always want to be for something. this has certainly been our approach to every issue we've encountered at home. we insist on being known for what we're for, not what we're against. an obligation to public service, in my opinion took a little while, but the minority here did accept the burden of saying here's a better way. but reality is that it wasn't very audible, and given the + numbers and the unlikelyhood of it happening. but it's still theeright thing to do. it would be the right thing.
so my every instinct is you always, always, always explain away what you think is the best way to make things better. but they give you a direct answer. i do beeieve that the bill that has passed will make health care worse, will make the largest problem the nation's facing, which is a crushing debt burden. it literally threatens vitality of this republic. much worse. and therefore we would be better off without it. i would never be acceptable to say that without, at least having your best go. your own best assessment of a way to improve on a status quo that wasn't acceptable. >> thank you governor. >> is that a high standard?
what it's worth?a, take it for - any other question from the audience? i have an question from the earther net. >> what continent did it come from? >> in is from twitter. why do you think there's ann assault on consumer health dreblingted plans? >> i'll give you the charitable answer. which is that there are people of good will and intention who really do not believe that americans are capable of making wise, health care choices for themselves. then it's too complicated. technology. that literally society would be better off if it was all
rationalized by a few wiser people. others of us would disagree strongly with that. i think we have some experience in our state that says it's not so. but i do believe these people honestly want better health for americans. would like for it to be be insurance. a peace of mind that comes with it to be more available. i'm going to give them credit for their intentions. >> yes, sir? >> chris fear leaf from the medical society. i'm from kentucky. right now we're going through a pretty big budget short fall. there's actually been all hands on deck for kentucky delegation. is there any kind of advice or
executive philosophy that you can have to lead that change of mentality to draw down money to actually solve it? >> i'm pretty baabful about giving advice to governors, no two states are alike, their situations aren't. i will say that it's certainly no permanent solution to keep borrowing money from the chinese or somebody in order to funnel some to states, many of whom could have done much more to keep their own commitments and revenues in line. you know, the first time around when they lowered our matching requirement in medicaid, you know, they sent the check and we cashed it. honestly, that was supposed to be a one time thing and it probably should be. but i will manage with or
without. but it won't be easy, and i know it won't be easy in your home state either. but ultimately it can't be good for america to just keep running this game with borrowed money much further. we have reduced, having picked a lot of low fruit in our state, we have reduced state government by an additional 25% across what you would think of as the discretion anywhere programs. and, so, yyu do things you would rather not do. it makes some unwelcome choices. but there's also virtue to not having a printing press. can't, as we say, kick the can. >> you know governor, from the word barbful and governor
used in the same sentence. you caught me off guard for a moment. i think we've been very fortunate to spend this time with governor daniels, and any last question from the audience? if not -- >> guy out there has been waiting. >> yes, sir, sorry. >> i was curious, give your background in business what kind of thought businesses would evaluate continuing to provide their health plans for just began to find and -- >> it's going to happen, it's going to happen big time. you've already seen the first evidence of it. it's not just the big business end. just look at the numbers. they're very convincing that that's on the math, that's the smart thing for them to do. and so some of them will. but it's not just that. therees a business woman i know at home who has built a very
successful string of restaurants. been in the process of consolidating the management. she noticed the 50 employee limit below which you're free from all this. -pso she called the lawyer and e accountant said stop, reverse everything and it will be less efficient way to run my business but i don't want to go near that. the one thing you won't be doing going forward, you will not hire employee number 51. probably the most expensive employee you ever put on the payroll. a read an article, this is probably too suspicious of you, but this was an advocate, sincere advocate of single cell health carousel brating the fact, if likelihood that millions and miilions of people are likely to come out of
employer health care because the default option will be the system that was wanted all along. i don't think this bill was designed with that in mind. i think it is going to be one of the many uninttnded consequences of what's been done here. >> another hand at the back, sorry. >> just wanted to get your thoughts, obviously in the health care reform, i was wondering if your thoughts on that and whether indiana had a different approach than you thought making it more effective? >> say it again, i got everything but the critical few words. >> sorry, in the health care reform bill, basically the insurance companies -- >> oh yeah right. >> i was wondering if found an
alternative. i just wanted your thoughts on that. >> well -- again, some of our insurance department experts were helping us think through this just the other day. this bill will further, i'm sad to say, further extend the exploitation of the young by the old in this country. in a variety of ways. when you charge somebody who's only likely to impose one or two cost on the system. when you charge them at least, what is it one fourth as much? it's going to lead to premiums that are way out of whack than what any sensible young person knows they should be paying. and as one gal said to me, the penalty that's beer money.
compared to the premium. going to be asked, particularly when our web literate, well informed young people are quickly going to figure out if something does go wrong against all the odds, just go online at the emergency room. literally. and you can't be turned down. when you consider that, why in the world would you pay? right? that would be necessary. so, the war on the young continues. and, i think in this case, it's the inner play of the sub siddy that the bill is trying to impose, and the escape hatch of no preexisting conditions, anybody gets in, sign uppin the ambulance, yeah, that's right. get your iphone, you can sign up on the way there.
the also likely to lead to outcomes that the proponents of the bill weren't thinking about. >> one of the reasons why you buy your automobile insurance at the dealer and not at the body shop. listen, thank you governor daniels, it's been a very informative hour. appreciate you being here. [cheers nd applause]
>> thursday, b.p. c.e.o. is scheduled to testify on capitol hill. that's live -- >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> 23 years ago, president reagan spoke those words. watch the entire speech today on american history tv on c-span 3. >> now a look at u.s. diplomatic relations with iran. also, a discussion about opposition to iran's government policies concerning
cybersecurity. this portion is about two hours. >> thank yu. thmoderator for our final pal, invitations to a policy is being detained someere on capitol hil. i will fill in for his dead. -- stead. i wi repeaif you could name me. len, the moderato for this pane isoterwise detained somewhere. iran's capitol hll. doing, visit. i'm assuming, and i willttempt to stand and in his te. this panel is meant to tak wht we've learned today in the discussion tay aboutwhat's happening in iran and outside of iran. vis-àis iran, and sa what
do ts all mean for .s. pocy? todaand going forwa. we he a very interesting panel, three distinct rsctives to help shed light onhe subject. our first panelt, nd/or op rtunistic savior director of the project on middle east democra. leslative process and spent time onapitol hill n a follower of s. policy the region. andrew? >> tha you very much, jim, and thanks for democcyounc for organizing tis. and forhe speaers are perceived as an set this discussion. in my remarks i want to couch this question of our support for iran isbasic ci >> i want to couch for the civil question of u.s. interest and policy on iran. the u.s. does have security interest related to iran's
nuclear program. these interests aren't going away. that said, and what interests me most, is that what we've heard today, i think leads us to view the situation in iran in a different light. and raises hopefully some additional policy options that are sometimes overlooked in the overheated, sometimes less than subtle washington narrative about threats and power and force. about public diplomacy or the aspiras of iniidual, not worry what ople think or that we couldver brea hrough the filter and connecticut with people in the region directly. let's not even ry. think that's wrong i think that's worse thn wrong but we'll leave it at wrg ght now. and it's especially rob oodward talking about iran. because of iran's markably high iernet penetration rates that we are ust speaking aut, and setting of international media. because of the country strong mile-class and to emerge from isolation, and because e country's growing disillusioned with its leadership tre ar opportunities for smart creative outreach to their many peopl
and we shld takeadvantage of those opportunitie ithink that's what i will talk about, what i think is a big missing pi what i think is the big missing approach to what it has rightly identified as a priority country, and a center piece of american interest right now. i think we need to articulate a bold new policy in support of the iranian people. even as we work to isolate the irgc types who are working to get a nuclear weapon and willing to shoot people down in the streets. i'll return to my recommendations at the end. let's first discuss what the administration has done so far. entering office, they made clear a willingness to engage diplomatically with iran. president obama wrote two letters stating as much. in the string and early summer of 2009, president obama made it clear that not only the u.s. was
not militarily threatening iran, in contrast to the bush administration, but that it was open to a future of new engagement with the iranian people. trade, from isolation in cairo, just before they went to vote, president obama's message was that my people re willing to move forward. the question now is not what iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build. i believe this outreach is not unconnected. in fact, with the u.s. as a threat off the table as an issue in iran's elections, a big shift into economic issues. fiscal mismanagement, corruption , inflation. all togetter this had the effect of fracturing while bolstering
the iranian opposition. by the fall, with diplomatic efforts firmly rebuffed, it became clear that something more than diplomacy would be needed, not just outreach. most prom neantly on the list of something more's are two things i think would be dramatic counter productive. military strikes. and brotherhood-based sanctions that would impact the cost of full for regular iranians. if the goal on the other hand is to stop iranian government from obtaining a nuclear weapon, i think we have to think of some other strategies. so, if those two aren't the answer, what can we do? this week the obama administration did get the
multilateral packages. this was a major part of a dual tract situation. i think so its credit he was able to achieve it. unfortunately now, side by side with the brazil and turkey outreach to iran which i think was quite unfortunate, i can't imagine we're going to see much diplomatic progress over the next several months. i think that track, this dual track approach is some what stalled. administration has also taken another stance by working together with its arab allies to strengthen their defenses. this too sends a strong message to iran while also taking responsible steps to prepare for a future in which iran might be a much stronger military power. so these are some of the elements of the strategy so far. here's the missing piece. what we don't see and what i
think the panels so far today and highliihted in great, effective detail. this administration is missing tremendous amount of opportunities to reach out and to communicate in innovative ways, more robust ways, our support for the iranian people for the basic rights, aspirations, for development. so, i would suggest that this is the time for reorientation and rearticulation of american policy that's couched in these terms of supporting the iranian people. so, five big components of that approach. first and most importantly we need much more time and investment in public diplomacy. president obama and secretary clinton need to state clearly and regularly in keeping with the priority that they are apparently placing on iran in the foreign policy. the u.s. concern for u.s. solidarity were demands for
rights and freedoms. we need to invest much more that those sanctions target military leadership running iran, and not the iranian people. interviews with persian news networks or bbc's farci network. many other efforts could be made to connect americans, musicians, actors, athletes to iranians through various media or to highlight cases of americans supporting iranians. the iranian people are going through a tremendously difficult period right now. to neglect that, to fail to take our empathy, our support is a huge missed opportunity. and with levels of internet penetration we were talking about, not to mention access to international news networks, this is not a question of whether the us can get out its message. it can. we need to try. the second, we do need to invest
in our tools for communicating with iranians. much of the criticism of persian news network i think has been misplaced. senate luger, by the way, has a big report coming out today on the broadcasting board of governors. i think it's well worth's everyone attention. some of the criticism has been misplaced. it needs to be a news network with not a partisan machine, not picking sides. that said, the recent shake-up of its leadership was probably called for. i think it's far too important. necessary attention on that and also keeping the board in place. and they need to be given -- sorry, additional effort needs to be made to increase that station's market share, and also they need far more resources to develop