tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 25, 2009 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
to insure everyone. we would then use the tremendous buying power to drive down medical costs. . every industrialized country has that system except the united states. we are going to change that. national polls show that the majority of doctors and the majority of americans favor a single payer system. that is why six months ago, we went to capitol hill. when senator baucus opened that first day of hearing in may, i
stood up and said, excuse me, sir, why have you taken single payer off the table? why have you not allowed one doctor testify for single payer? baucus ordered us arrested. one by one, margaret, kevin, carol, and four others stood up and confronted baucus. and one by one we were all arrested and charged with disruption of congress. in a plea deal earlier this year, we agreed not to disrupt congress throughout the end of this year. since that day in may, baucus and harry reid in the senate, and nancy pelosi and steny hoyer in the house have cobbled together incomprehensible legislation. it is convoluted and confusing. but one thing is clear -- president obama and the democrats have cut a dirty deal with the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. obama took single payer off the table. and in exchange, the health insurance and pharmaceutical
industries supported his drive for reform. that is why harry and louise, once again paid for by big pharma, are back on the air, this time arguing for passage of the democratic health care legislation. there are 88 members of the house who say they support single payer. yet only congressmen dennis kucinich and eric massa courageously stood up and voted earlier against president obama and against nancy pelosi and against steny hoyer and against the democratic leadership of congress. kucinich called the democratic bill, a bailout under a blue cross. nasa said the bill would enshrine in law the monopolistic powers -- massa said the bill would enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry. single payer action today is
calling on the 88 single payer supporters in the house to stop hiding. come out, come out wherever you are. start from scratch and pass single payer. on july 30, 54 single payer supporters in the house side the letter saying that anything less than a public option tied to medicare rates was unacceptable. a few months later, they backed down and accepted and even puny public option not tied to medicare rates, a public option that will only cover 6 million americans. the hyper puny public option in the senate bill will cover only 4 million americans. and much of the puny relief the of the democratic bills will not kick in until 2013. many people who need coverage now will be dead by then. who will stand with kucinich and massa and against obama's health care monstrosity? earlier this month, congressman
to save your but sarah was critical of nancy pelosi for giving up too easily -- congressman xavier becerra was critical of nancy pelosi for giving up too easily on the robust public option. according to report, pelosi said, i understand i have tire tracks on my back because he threw me under the bus. no, madam speaker, it is the other way around. what about congressman conyers? he said he was tired of the rahm emanuel approach of give us anything and we will declare victory. conyers said that he feared that president obama would just sign anything. but the question is, will john conyers agree to vote for anything? he did earlier this month. when will he break from obama? congresswoman donna edwards is another so-called progressive for single payer.
she took single payer off the table. she also said in july that anything less than a public option tied to medicare rates was unacceptable. she then reneged on that promise and accepted the puny public option. just last week, guess what? steny hoyer posted a fundraiser for donna edwards at johnny half shell on capitol hill. host -- $5,000. pack -- $2,500. individual-$1,000. congressman raul grijalva, the head of the so-called progressive caucus in congress, started out supporting single payer. now he is in favor of the puny public option. he says he will strongly consider voting against the puny public option it is watered down to triggers. this is what the democrats are good at -- capitulation. let's look at the other side for a bit of guidance. joe lieberman, the senator from
aetna, will shut down the senate at the drop of a hat for the health insurance companies. who will be our joe lieberman? who were shut down the senate for the american people? single payer forces all over the country are quickly moving against the democratic legislation. earlier this month, a coalition of labor unions and other single payer activists adopted a resolution at a national standard tree -- a strategy conference in st. louis calling on congress to defeat the democratic legislation. mikuak rdr. marcia angell earlis month called on congress to do nothing instead of passing the democratic bill. it simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance
industry. the danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we tried health reform and it did not work. but the real problem will be that we really did not try it. i would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right. last greek, robert reich clinton's former secretary of labor, said that under the bills pending in congress, the cup is 90% empty. most of us will be stuck with little or no choice, dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who do not take our calls. he said, i want every senator who is not in the pocket of the private insurers or big pharma to introduce and vote for an "ted kennedy medicare for all" amendment to whatever bill reid takes to the floor.
we only need a courageous few in the house and a courageous few in the senate to tank this turkey. call your member of congress and your senator now. tell them the democratic bill is a bailout of the health insurance industry. tell them to join with congressmen massa and kucinich. but against the 2000-page obama bill. start from scratch. pass a simple 30-page bill instead. h.r. 676. health care is a human right. everyone in, nobody out. join with us in this historic movement to defeat the democratic bill 3 start from scratch and pass single payer. >> i am dr. margaret flowers, and the congressional fellow. i also serve on the steering committee of the leadership conference and i am on the board of health care now, a national single payer grassroots
organization. members of physicians for national health program educate for a single payer system known as medicare for all. we perform groundbreaking research on health crisis in the need for fundamental reform. we contribute scholarly articles to peer reviewed medical journals. pnhp takes pride in providing information that can inform legislators and the public about the reasons why medicare for all is the optimal solution to provide necessary medical treatment to everyone in the united states in a way that controls health care costs. pnhp does not take a position on how congress members should vote on the legislation that is currently proceeding through congress. we do provide them permission to members about whether the legislation is likely to be affected and how it compares to national and single payer systems. we joined them many health care
reform advocates across the nation who are disappointed by the reform legislation that is passing through congress. we like you are seriously concerned by the current health- care environment in the united states. we're saddened by the number of people, our patience, our family, and our friends, who are dying because they cannot afford access to health care. we're saddened by the number of people better facing bankruptcy or foreclosure of their homes because they cannot afford or have access to medical treatment. we anticipate the health-care debate that would focus on the true stakeholders, the patients and those who take care of them. and so we were disappointed that those voices were silenced by the industry's that have a financial grip on our media and on and our legislators. we share a growing sense of desperation among patients and providers across the nation, heightened by the current economic crisis. like you, we are hungry for change but we believe that we
should act based on evidence on what types of health reform had been effective. a review of the current legislation reveals that it resembles health care reform that has been tried and failed over and over at the state level recently. it is for the reasons that i list below that we should start from scratch in order to create a national health-care system that addresses the fundamental problems of health care in this nation and creates a system that has a similar quality to what is seen in other industrialized nations. number one, during that time that it would take for this health care reform to be enacted, which according to the house legislation is 2013, and the senate is 2014, hundreds of thousands of americans are going to die. no. 2, was the insurance reform
takes effect, people will still be left without health insurance. whether it is the 17 million left out in the house version or the 24 million left out in the senate version, we find this unacceptable. we know that the actual number of uninsured people that is likely to be higher than these estimates, and we know that people do not have health insurance and have a 40% greater chance of dying your number three, medical bankruptcy's will continue to occur as families face out of pocket cost on covered services of up to $10,000 per year. in addition to the cost of premiums and uncovered services. the average medical debt that drives into medical bankruptcy is $18,000. number four, people who are uninsured will suffer as the further indignity of being forced to pay a fine which may be as high as 2.5% of their income. this is called criminalization of health care reform. number five, the number of
people who are underinsured will increase with this legislation. people will be required to purchase insurance or face a penalty. but there is no guarantee that the premiums will be affordable, even for those who qualify for the federal subsidies. health insurers have already predicted that the cost of premiums will rise because they required to stop the practices of not accepting pre-existing conditions and other. a similar system is expected to be more import -- more expensive, and similar forms a massachusetts has led to a rise in patients forgoing care because they could not for premiums. people will be consigned to on the receiving the quality of care that they can afford. instead of a standardized benefit plan that covers all necessary care, people will have to choose from a set of plans. the least expensive plan will only cover 60% of the necessary
services, and they will be responsible for the rest. no. 7, the legislation will not control health-care saw -- cost and will in fact increase the waste in health-care spending. it is predicted by industry whistle blowers to continue to fail. the exchanges will have to be created from scratch. it will add another level of bureaucracy which in the state of massachusetts has added a 4% charge to reach insurance premium. unfortunately this legislation does nothing to reclaim the hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary paperwork, administration, and marketing for the health insurance plans that we currently have. number eight, this legislation transfers hundreds of billions of dollars of public money to the private insurance industry. people will be mandated to purchase insurance, whether they can afford it or not, and the insurance companies will benefit by having millions of new
enrollees. it is estimated that between 47,000,600 $5 billion will be given to the private insurers in forms of subsidies -- $47,000,000,000.59 $5 billion will be given to the private insurers in the form of subsidies -- $47 billion and $65 billion will be given to the private insurers and form of subsidies. in addition, this legislation gives biotech firms of windfall patent. and finally, this legislation continues to allow discrimination based on age and immigration status. all our enrollees will be charged twice as much as younker. and those enrollees will be required to prove their
citizenship. those without citizenship status will be required to purchase without subsidy. this amounts to a massive bailout for the profit-making health industries which will enrich them and further increase their ability to lobby and influence legislators in the future. at the same time, patients will receive little in the way of long-lasting protection or ability to afford needed health care. this legislation is designed to fail. in the meantime, it will waste billions of dollars and delay the process creating effective health care reform. we call on health care to start from scratch. we know that we have the resources to create a national health system that will improve the health of our people and of our nation. we believe that being ranked 37th in the world for help outcomes is unacceptable and that we as a nation can do much better than this. we believe that improving and expanding medicare to all people
is the simplest and quickest way to achieve our goal of universal and financially sustainable health care. as far as the health care insurance and congress goes, we understand there is a substitute amendment which would substitute public financing for the current complicated plan did we urge our senators to vote -- on the current complicated plan. we urge our senators to vote yes on the sanders substitution motion. we look for the day when all in the united states receive the same health security as those who live and other industrialized nations, as those who see it is their right and other industrialized nations. we look forward when doctors are free to focus on the needs of their patients without being -- without interference from insurance companies. together we will succeed. bernanke. -- thank you.
>> good morning. my name is mikuak rai, founder of the coalition of the uninsured and underinsured for single payer, and a board member of health care now. president obama has stated several times over the past year that if we were starting from scratch, a single payer system would make the most sense. so we are here today to say that it is time to start over from scratch and pass single payer health insurance for the american people. the house bill, 3962, it is completely an adequate and expanding coverage and controlling costs. it has been stated already by dr. flower senate cannot be overstated that this bill is essentially an insurance industry bailout.
most provisions to expand coverage did not even go into effect until 2013, 2014 in the senate bill. after which, it leaves 17 million americans uninsured. the senate bill would have even less impact. it leaves at least 24 million americans uninsured. instead of putting more band- aids on to cover-up a continual it festering system, starting from scratch seems to be the only way to ensure that all americans can have equal access to care, where everyone is in and nobody is out. just looking at the turnout of the more than 6000 uninsured citizens who came to the forum at inglewood, calif. this august to receive care from the remote area free clinic, it is clear that many people, mostly poor, the more immediate access to care them what these bills are offering. thousands more have recently
been serve this month by the national association of free clinics with their one-day operations in little rock, arkansas and new orleans, louisiana. i. cornyn of harvard medical researchers, thousands died because of lack of access to quality medical care. we cannot continue to rely on the kindness of these tireless medical volunteers, just because we have a system that neglects even the least of these among us. health care is a human right. nearly 61 years ago on december 10, 1948, the general assembly of the united nations, of which i might add the united states is a member, adopted and proclaimed the universal declaration of human rights. article 25 of this great document states in part, and i quote, everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate to the well-being of himself and of
his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services. this declaration was an intended as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. and now six decades later, the united states remains the only industrialized nation that has yet to enact and there -- i national health care system for its people. it is clear that the american people want more. all poll from september 2009 found solid support for government-administered health care plan. would you favor or oppose a government offering everyone a government-administered health care plan, something like the medicare coverage that people 65 and older received? it would compete with private insurance plans. with the question posed that way, 65% of the respondents
supported the idea. what the market -- with the majority of americans supporting the idea of government- administered health care programs, exactly what single payer is, then why is it that congress, those elected to represent the will of the people, cannot translate the people's overwhelming desire into pragmatic application? the voice of the uninsured, some 47 million people, has gone largely on heard in the health care reform debate. legislators and the leadership of this nation are listening to the voices of the insurance company and big pharma to have quite frankly given the millions of reasons to listen. according to the web site opensecrets.org, they had given millions of dollars to contributions to members of congress as well as president obama. at the true story of the
original thanksgiving, they are a direct give at the expense of the common people. with these bills, it will become a federal crime to be uninsured. a penalty of 2.5% of income. the insurance industry will be very thankful to have that 25 to 30 million new customers, mainly middle income working people, promised to do the mandated health insurance, for that is what is being basically given with these bills. we say no to both the house and senate bills. start over from scratch and enact a single payer system. medicare for all, which is both humane and financially solvent. thank you.
>> good morning. my name is dr. carol paris. i am a practicing psychiatrist and a member of positions for national health program. another set of voices missing from this debate beside the voices of the underinsured and the uninsured, all the voices of america's doctors. here is what america's doctors think. 59% of u.s. physicians now support national health insurance. that is up from 49% in 2002. this is according to a study in the annals of internal medicine, 2008. since the lead author -- such as the lead author, many claim to speak for doctors. we ask doctors directly. we found that contrary to conventional wisdom, most
doctors support the government creating national health insurance. why? according to the co-author, another pnhp member, "physicians failed are fragmented and for- profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care." as a practicing physician for 20 years, i see every day how the greed of the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical industries have added a huge burden of financial anxiety and stress on the patient's at exactly the time when they are most vulnerable, when they are ill. just this week, a 62-year-old patient of mine told me that she and her husband lost their health insurance when their business of 45 years succumb to the economic crisis.
at 62, she's too young for medicare and she does not qualify for medicaid. they are living in a trailer attached to their car. she does not know how she is going to pay for surgery that she desperately needs next week. later in the day, i saw a patient whose employer just switched plans. i do not participate in the plan. so now she has to find another doctor. congressman hoyer, senator mikulski, senator carden, you represent my state and i am asking you, how does this constitute good patient care? how was this cost-effective? when you tell your constituents it is like your employer sponsored health insurance. you can keep it. what you do not say is, if you
hate your employer sponsored health insurance, to gone bad. you're stuck with it. with a single payer option -- solution, like traditional medicare, everyone has the freedom to choose the doctor and hospital of their choice. and i say, may the best doctors and the best hospitals wind and prevail. that is competition that i would support. and this is not born just five patients per day are not the only one stressed out and anxious. this toll is borne by physicians as well. we have an epidemic of disheartened, discouraged, and sometimes angry physicians. there misdirected anger has become such a problem to hospitals that hospitals are now required to have a policy for dealing with these so-called
disruptive decisions. -- dr. i think that they are discouraged. they are discouraged by it health care system that has become so intrusive, byrd and son, and the meaning -- bergen s -- burdensome and demea ning, that they are retiring early. we are leaving the practice of medical -- medicine in tallied to join the ranks of health care administrators who look to the cost of health care but not to the delivery. for me personally, the antidote to discouragement has been activism. i am proud to say i am one of the 17,000 members of decisions for national health program.
educating and advocating for a single payer national health program. it is something that i did joyfully and in a spirit of compassion and good will. for all patients, all my colleagues, and everyone living in the united states. and it does also something i do for my own peace of mind. pnhp is a wellspring of evidence-based research that clearly demonstrates the flaws and the proposed legislation. i will let go over that again but i would encourage everyone who is listening to go to the pnhp web site, pnhp.org, and the president obama, in 2003, when you were a state senator, you said you supported single payer national health insurance.
but you said first we have to win back the house and win back the senate. and win back the white house. well, mr. president, we have done that. now as president, and you said, it if i was starting from scratch, i would go with the single payer system. mr. president, happy thanksgiving. but please do not part in this turkey. it is time to start from scratch. -- please do not pardon this turkey. it is time to start from scratch. thank you. >> thank you all for coming and for being so attentive. my name is kevin zeese, the director of prosperityagenda.us. we're trying to remake the economy to be more democratized and more equitable. i come with the focus primarily on the economic impact of this
legislation compared to what single payer would do for the country. we are also an initiating organization for mobilization for health care. this demonstrates how the congress is so out of touch with the american people and their base in urgent necessity for it mobilization for health care, we started just six weeks ago, and we focused on protesting insurance companies for denial of health care. we asked 100 people to step toward and be willing to go to the insurance companies and sit in and risk arrest to make the case that insurance companies are not the solution to the problem but the cause of the problem. surprisingly, almost 1000 people have signed up. 150 people have already been arrested. we have people risking or rest, protesting the insurance industry, thousands of people doing this while the congress is about to force them to buy private insurance. quite the disconnect between the
congress and the american people. but not between their founders. they put those interest first before the urgent necessities of the american people. if you care about this, we hope you will visit our web site. it has switched gears. now they are going to their senator's offices and asking them to support center sanders on man meant to put in place a single payer health care system -- center sanders -- senator sanders'amendment to put in place a single payer health care system. we hope to go back and make the demand and seek their response, to highlight on human rights day that healthcare is a human right. it is a birthright -- it should be the birthright of every one in the united states. one other example before the
economics. how out of touch the congress is with the people's needs. harvard study found 45,000 people died in the united states each year, a baseball stadium full of people, dying everywhere in the united states because they cannot get health care. harry reid's bill does not take effect until 2014 for more than 200,000 -- until 2014. more than 200,000 people died. halling competent and dysfunctional can the congress be? when they allowed 200,000 americans to die while they do nothing? when medicare was passed, it was put into effect within a year. why does the light? 200,000 deaths on the hands of the congress. let me turn to the economic impact. i want to put this in the
context of the economy, the real economy most americans are living through. there are a number of studies that came out this year. the census came out, finding a widening income gap as the poor and working-class take a big hit from the recession. here is our report. the recession has hit middle income families hardest. widening the income gap between the richest and poorest americans as crippling job losses ravages households. it declined across all groups. people got poorer across all groups. but the sharpest percentage was for middle-income and poor americans, those without insurance, by the way. there fell -- their incomes fell down to the levels of the 1970's. people living on 1970's and come in the 21st century. poverty jumped to an 11-year high, 13.2%.
another report from "usa today" -- the incomes of young and middle-aged men have fallen off a cliff since 2000. it leaves many for its poorer than they were even in the 1970's. poorer than they were even in the 1970's. another study from the university of st. louis, nearly half of all u.s. children will use food stamps during their lifetime. 49% of all u.s. children will be in a household that uses food stands at some point during their childhood, a poverty expert at washington university of st. louis. his study entailed estimating the risk of food stamp use and impoverishment during childhood, which is published in the archives of pediatrics, and they
found 90% of african-american children will be on food stands at some point in their life. nearly 25% of all american children will be in households that use food stamps for five years or more. 91% of children of single mothers, single parents, will be in households receiving food stamps. 91%. another study coming out from the department of agriculture says 14% of americans are now short on food. 49 million americans, one in seven, struggle to get enough to eat. the highest level in 14 years. here we are -- these workers and their families, the new working poor, unable to put enough food and not -- food on the table for their children or even for themselves. they are facing in comes that are being depleted, facing job
insecurity, bankruptcies and foreclosures a record high -- and what does the congress do? out of touch are they? they say to this impoverished americans, you will have to buy health insurance from these corporations that you hate, with ceo's that make an average salary of $11 million a year -- you cannot put food on the table, but we will force you to subsidize the incomes of the ceo's. that is how out of touch our congress is. that's -- 200,000 by the time this goes into effect. people being forced to choose food over health insurance. and the federal government looking at them as criminals if they choose food. add to that, personal bankruptcies. hitting a four-year high. a report from cnn -- personal bankruptcies topped the 1 million mark for the first time in nine months.
-- for the first nine months of the year, excuse me. there were up 35% over 2008, according to the report of the american bankruptcy institute. another report on health care and bankruptcy. all harvard study finds 50% decrease in 2001, most of those bankrupted by illness or middle- class americans who have insurance. medical problems contributed to the 67% of world bankruptcy's in 2007 according to the study and the american journal of marriage to sen. most of the bankruptcies have health insurance. more than 79% were insured at the start of the bankruptcy proceeding, and yet they went bankruptcy anyway. what does the house bill do to stop bankruptcy? nothing. denial of care will still exist under these bills. there was an effort to include
the in the bill allowing an independent court review would a doctor recommended care, but that was not included. these people facing health crises can be denied health coverage by their insurance industry, and there is no cost control. projection pelosi up to 111% increase that have already jumped dramatically in the last few years. here we are again. congress added a touch with one of the most pressing issues of the day, bankruptcy and the health care reform that they put forward will do nothing to solve it. what alternatives are there? a study came out last week that needs more attention. it looked at medicare compared to non-medicare patients, and black, latino, and poor households. they examined 6000 people over a seven-year period looking at
cardiovascular disease and diabetes. what they've found was that even while we have gotten better at treating these diseases, for those under 65 years old, their health ashley got worse with these -- their health got worked with these diseases because they had no access. medicare worked over all social and economic groups. all of these groups that help your under medicare. medicare was an equalizer. it worked. studies have found 60% of those on medicare rank at a 9 or 810 on the scale a positive value. -- nine or eigha 10 on a scale positive value. what will serve as back this up.
68% of people on medicare feel that their interest comes first three only 48% of those on private insurance feel that way. so staring us right in the face, 40 years of a successful health-care program, one that has made the united states won at the best in the world at treating cancer. we talk about how bad we're doing when we break a 37. one thing we do well as cancer. why? because they are primarily treated by the single payer system, medicare. it works. rather than seeking -- taking what people like, what has been effective and uniquely american, with the bureaucracy of 4% on like the insurance industry, they ignore the obvious solution -- medicare for all. improve it, expanded, cover everybody.
that is the solution. one other point, and in this is a broader point on the economy. a study came out of rutgers earlier this month that says it will take seven years for the jobs to recover in this economy seven years. 2017, we may get back to where we were at the beginning of this recession. compare that to a study they came out earlier this year and the impact of single payer health care on the economy. establishing a national single payer health care system would provide a major stimulus to the u.s. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs and using $370 billion new business revenue and new wages to the u.s. economy, a " -- according to the findings of the report released earlier this year. stimulus to the economy.
an increase of 2.2 million jobs. that is as many jobs as were lost in 2008. single payer would be a stimulus everyone recognizes that the economy is in a mess. rather than putting forward a solution to control costs, create opportunity, they have to build a wall anchoret -- they have put forward a bill the willanchor -- that will anchor it. rather than single payer, now we're going to spend $1 trillion to cover failed system. this bill, the democrats have made a gigantic mistake on it.
this bill needs to be defeated. we need to start from scratch and start all over on the single payer track. defeat this bill and start over. the obvious solution is staring us in the face, which will prevent death and bankruptcy, a single payer system. expand and improve medicare for all pre please join us at prosperityagenda.us as we remake the economy. we see health care as an essential step. join us at other web sites to challenge the senate to put in place some real provisions that can really improve this bill. it they did not do it, we should defeated. thank you very much. >> thank you, kevin. i was listening to c-span this morning on a call-in show. there were talking about the war in afghanistan. apparently president obama is about to send 30,000 more troops over.
the calls were overwhelmingly opposed, left, right, center, and depended. -- independent. the same c-span audience as opposed to the democratic bill. the republicans, when they go on the floor the senate, they hold up the 2000-page stack. there is something real about that. no one can understand it and no one is going to read it. our bill is 30 pages. it is simple. and we have a compromise. drop the medicare rate -- dropping from 65 to 55, and then drop the 45, and then dropped to 35. but now it is outraging the american people, but the afghan war and helped build, and both should be defeated. we hope to see an uprising this coming year. we have a few minutes for questions. yes, sir, could you identify
yourself? dollars congressional quarterly. what chance to use the of turning center sanders -- senator sanders' vote into a no vote? how many more do you think you can pick up in the house? >> we have low expectations. first, because the progressive in the house have waffled. when they said they would do something, they did not stand by what they said. for example, the july 30 at letter -- 54 progressives said that anything less than what they decide it was a robust public option, tied to medicare rates, anything less than that was unacceptable. so that is where they drew their line in the sand. an two months later, they said, we can accept something less.
or call the grijalva -- grijalva says that he will strongly consider voting against traders. but he signed july 30 of letter, how can we believe him? when i raised the possibility that sanders would be our joe lieberman, he said, sanders is not. we have a history of fighters and the american senate for the american people. sanders is apparently not that. >> your question brings out the conflict between political reality and practical reality. we think that in the end, single payer will be inevitable. this bill is going to leave tens of millions uninsured, it will not control costs, it will not solve the bankruptcy problems, it will not solve the problem of denial of care.
all those problems will remain. it will cover up for a few years but all of these problems remain. that is the practical reality. they can pass this bill but they will not solve health care with it. we believe that we're going to continue with this for our various organizations, continue to organize and build an organized, and in the end, we think that single payer is the solution that will solve the health-care crisis in the united states. and it will come sooner than people realize. >> i am with talking points. congress and the white house has said a is this bill -- it is this bill are no bill. will they be better off now if the bill does not pass? >> that is the age-old question. what we have as a history in
this nation is of that very same struggle -- do we pass something just to pass something that will help a few people, because it is all we can accomplish? we keep compromising in saying that we will -- we have done this before. we've done mandates and subsidies, expansions to medicate before. what does help some people in the short term, and the long term it has failed. each of these programs have failed within a matter of years. none of them achieved the coverage that they anticipated. i'm thinking about sex like tennessee, maine, massachusetts, oregon. they all predicted that the solutions would cover everybody and save money and within a matter of years they failed. our concern is all realistic one, people will get the sense that we have done this, we have done health care reform, and let's move on to the next issue. and in fact this is not going to
be a fix. we want people to remember that no matter what happens this year, we have not addressed the fundamental problems. we have not created a health system, 01 that provides health care to everybody, one that allows doctors to care for their patients, and it will not save money. we need to continue moving, continue to work for medicare for all. >> the mantra at the beginning was a robust public option. will the ads consist of? something that the insurance companies do not want? what actually happened? >> that is why we call that i designed to fail. those who are working will be keeping their employer-sponsored
insurance. they will not be allowed to actually buy the public option for its most likely the public option will end up with those who have more medical problems. this is a pattern that we've seen repeatedly in the united states when you have public and private insurance is that are bh available, the private insurance is typically able to attract the older and the sick. then they struggle with being able to provide and pay for the health care. it ultimately failed. the public option in the house is estimated to be available to about 2% of the population. it will be a little more expensive than private insurance. the plan in the senate is available to probably 1% of the population, who will be the
sickest. dollars the same money that we're spending now, while covering everybody. why hasn't the cdo moved on this? there is not been any cbo numbers, as i understand it. >> an excellent question. there had been congressional budget office studies and general accounting office studies that show under a nationally publicly funded health care system, we can provide it -- health care to everyone for the same amount of money. the requested that we have cbo scoring a single pair so that we could compare it had to head to the legislation passing through congress. that request was denied. we were told that it was not a priority, that our bill, h.r. 6 under 76, had not made it out of committee. we were denied that scoring.
there was a request when representative anthony wiener was offered the possibility of a debate and vote on the floor of the house, but the cbo again did not have time to do a study. and so we have not have it of full cbo scoring recently in this decade on single payer. we know that it would perform much better than what is coming out now. >> i call it a blog that looks into this kind of history. -- i co-edit all blog that looks into this type of history. many newspapers are opposing the system. it did not seem to get much traction. at logan circle, people were avoiding that like they did on election day.
80% of that constituency bloated democratic or for obama. they say that they support this. it seems to be low on how much they are excited about it. in light of that, how do you see this passing? >> their protests all over the country. if there was indications that whole foods lost some business over the protests. for those who do not know, the ceo wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal saying that health care should not be a human right. a lot of people were very upset about it. there were facebook web sites that sprung up spontaneously, and we did call for a boycott. a lot of people participated in protest all around the country. i think it was a successful
protest. how do we trigger mass action on single payer? i do not let obama off the hook on the spirit of lot of people in the single payer movement say that we have to push obama so that we can get him cover. but obama started in the middle. he started with a dirty deal with the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry. had he started with single payer, there would have been a real coalition. there is a collision now because the health insurance companies are going to fight everything in the pharmaceutical companies will fight everything. but had he started with single payer, then the line would have been clear and we couldn't have a real national education campaign about what -- and we could have had a real national education campaign about what this is about. he pulled his punches. i think it is a disgrace. and we have to start over and we
have to be clear about it. the democrats who favor a single payer system, they admit in their private moments and some public moments that the public option is backdoor single payer. but that is not good enough. we want to walk in the front door and we want to confront the health insurance industry head on. sure. >> i would like to add to that that one single payer gets the media coverage that it backers -- teabaggers that, we will have a more wellspring of enthusiasm. the single payer advocates teabaggers, we are not so crazy,
screaming, yelling people. we are intelligent, compassionate people who use evidence-based research to make our point. and unfortunately sometimes that is just not very sexy. thank you. >> on your question again, two points. the media, if you go to a prosperityagenda.us and search single payer, you'll see the research this shows overlapping boards with insurance company executives on media boards, advertising media survives on from pharmaceutical and insurance industries. that is a big challenge. and on developing the movement, even russell being nice to obama -- obama held a white house town hall on health care
right at the beginning. not only did we have a hard time getting single payer in their, we finally got john conyers in there, but it was allowed to speak? the first speaker? the insurance industry. alas speaker? the insurance industry. it was obvious from the beginning that president obama was leading down the path of the private insurance bailout. that is what the guy. -- that is what we got. i see evidence of real growth in the single payer movement, real activism. if you go to our site, you can see what has been going on around the country. it has not got media attention but is going wrong. i'm talking led demonstrations and dozens of cities and at dozens of insurance companies, where hundreds of people had been arrested sitting and, protesting the insurance company. it shows the conflict between
work congress is going and where the american people are. even without the media coverage, we set a goal of 100 people sitting in, and we got 100310 times what we expected. with about 100 would be hard to get. -- and we got 1000, 10 times what we expected. we thought 100 would be hard to get. it is getting stronger and more determined. i think we've all come to the agreement in the leadership, that what is going on in congress will not solve the problem. so i expect you will see this issue come back sooner than you people -- than people expect. the movement is much bigger and much stronger than you realize. oh, definitely. the next phase of the mobilization is focused on congress, on the democratic
leadership in the senate. they are the ones who are making these -- this health-care bill. particularly senator reid, senator durbin, senator baucus -- these are the primary focus of our effort. yes, they will be pressured by their constituents at home did this week they're going to them and making the demand on december 10, human rights day. that will come back and make it clear that health care is a human right and should be considered a birthright of all people in the united states. they will make that demand aggressively. keep watching that. .
education around that. there is the intention of continuing to move this down the court. it is not over. there is momentum building. we are looking for new tools in terms of media outreach. kbecoming more inclusive of organizations that recognizes healthcare as a common ground issue. also with the u.s. social form coming up, that will be another point of further mobilization for the single payer effort. i do think from my own
observation and exposure and involvement that there is cohesion. it has room to improve and there is the effort out there on the part of all of the organizations. there are four or five organizations and we are focused on the same outcome which is passing single payer health-care insurance in america. the leadership conference is a coalition of organizations that was convened by physicians for national health program, the california nurses association, the organizing committee, health care now, progressive democrats of america, numerous organizations, face, community groups. we represent over 20 million people nationwide who support
this kind of system. we are anticipating to grow. health care now, a national health care organization, has many branches across the nation. many of us who are physicians speaker regularly and are willing to speak. if there are states or groups around the country who would like to more about this board joined the movement, i urge you to go to healthcare.org. we will continue to advocate and grow. our organizations do not receive industry dollars so when you look into the work that we have done over the past number of
years and the small amount of money that we have had and you look at the millions and millions of dollars spent to oppose health care, we have come a very long way. this speaks to the power of our movement. >> we will take a last question. the interesting thing about the the movement is that there are a lot of grass-roots groups that sprang up spontaneously. in the eastern panhandle, there are scores of groups who support single payer. a lot of this is spontaneous grass-roots. there are national organizations. people are coming together. the first thing would be to defeat the democratic bill and to have a single payer advocates in the house and senate in the lead for defeating that the bill so we will have a leg up on the debate.
>> before the whole t. becker thing happened, -- teabagger thing, a bunch of you were arrested at the max baucus hearings. was it a mistake to step away from that? >> that was a legal settlement. it was a legal settlement and it was a plea agreement. we agreed -- we did not plead guilty. we said we would not protest in congress through the end of the year and the charge would be dropped. that was the agreement. >> [inaudible] >> we can get arrested but the consequences would be severe potentially.
we should focus on the democratic leadership in congress, they are the ones that created this bill and a bailout. we should get arrested up there. we should hold their feet to the fire. they are the ones who are responsible for this bill and we want it defeated. >> [inaudible] >> it is pretty difficult to get 13 people and to be arrested for single payer and we pulled it off. it did not trigger a wave or enter and we did not see a lot of people who wanted to do this. i think that we should continue. we are continuing to agitate and we will continue to focus. keep your eyes on these websites. singlepayeraction.org.
thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the senate returns on monday to begin formal debate on health-care legislation. live coverage is on c-span to starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> said the night, as americans laid down for sleep, moderate democrats laid down their beliefs, sold out their constituents, bowled over by pressure from barack obama and harry reid. they imploded to move forward a government health care bill our nation does not want and cannot afford. one member sold her vote to the highest bidder. one biddemember sold out his principles. two lost whatever credibility they had on fiscal
responsibility. one voted one way after saying that she was for another. it is no wonder where they voted in the dead of night. >> a year from now, i will break my leg and my parents will have to sell my house because we cannot afford health care. >> three months from now i will need surgery and my parents will go bankrupt. >> i will be diagnosed with leukemia and i will die because we cannot afford health care. >> there are 8 million uninsured children in america. >> 8 million. >> 8 million. >> we all deserve health care. >> lots more on the health-care debate on minline at c-span.org
/healthcare. "the new york times," reported that the nfl is changing their policy on concussions requiring independent review. this comes after a house hearing on the issue. you can watch the hearing tonight. thanksgiving day at c-span, at 10:00 a.m. bill clinton is on hand to present steven spielberg with a metal. also we will have a discussion on terrorism and nuclear weapons. at 5:00, we will have a hip-hop
i can and a lot more to the list. in fact, politics is one of our favorite pastimes in this great state. we talk about it continuously and with a fair amount of knowledge and usually partisan viewpoints. i am happy that we are having the bipartisan center here today. in new orleans, there are many political topics that and sometimes it is hard to fit into any one subject. whether it is local, state, national politics, someone in the city will have an opinion. today, our program is called "what is fair in politics." that is a good question. aid would get different answers from our senators -- it iwould get different answers from our
senators. i am sure that you will leave this program with some very interesting thoughts from the six individuals who are speaking about what is fair in politics. it was so full, thoughtful, it was encouraging. i learned a great deal about a lot of issues and found a lot more common ground than i ever thought was possible between people representing two different parties. there are too many people for me to recognize today but there are three that i want to recognize. the first is walter isaacson.
he is a wonderful historian, is trustee of tulane university, my press agent. it is a delight to have you back on campus. next i want to call out mary matalin and james carville. they have proven themselves to be an outstanding representatives of our city and state. they are irresponsible for this summit being here. -- they are responsible for this summit being here. i am very excited to of james as a professor of political science. he has done a marvelous job, the
students love him. he is bipartisan when he teaches his class. there were two conditions of inclement. one was bipartisanship and the other was rhetoric about lsu on the to lane campus. -- tulane campus. until we get married to teach a course, i will not considered a success. on please welcome to the podium at mary and james. [applause] >> well, our role here is to welcome our friends. we are not on any panels. when our friends saw the title,
we did not jump to their minds. i want to say to our friends how incredible this panel and all of the consultants are. james and i worked with all of them for the last however many years and for the past 30 or 40 for decades. these are the leaders in national politics and state politics and local politics. there is nothing that you had seen in all of our adult lifetimes that people have not been involved with the intent bu.
get things done on the ground without killing each other pentode this is a bipartisan issue, coastal restoration. it is bipartisan. you will hear about this. thank you so much for coming and for providing this forum. one man's poison is another man's kool-aid, honey. quest >> justice stewart said he could not define pornography but he knows it when he sees it. i cannot find talent, but you are looking at it.
these are people that have enormous influence in this country. not just influence in companies, the press. we want to emphasize how much we are delighted that you came down here, each and every one of you. to every person in this city and state, we need to put our best foot forward. these are people whose opinions really matter. i don't know if i have never been to one of these that has level of experience that has been put together right here in new orleans. it says something that people with this kind of influence and experience chose to come to our city. i want to make sure that we put our best foot forward.
each one of these people is talented and experienced. i urge everyone to read their biographies. we really appreciate all of you being here and we look forward to hosting york and showing you a good time. thank you very much. -- host ninycaller:you and we lk forward to showing you a good time. >> our organization was formed by george mitchell, howard baker, in order to bring forth the principle of compromise necessary for bipartisanship. we should not be bipartisan because it is nice but the only way to get the kind of change we need in this country.
but we also have the former communications director for the democratic national committee. if a political consultant feel strongly about something for the good of the campaign and the government, what influence do they have on what the candidate will say? are you really just a hired gun? >> we believe in the candidates. in some cases, we work with
people that we have known for many many years. we might have influence on them. there are many public policy issues that are not clear black- and-white issues. and a lot of people even if they have a strong set of principles have to think about it and analyze it and determine where they come down on something. sometimes we have influence but 99% of your job is to figure out where that candidate stands 10 to make sure that he or she does do their homework and be prepared to take positions on issues. you help them make it through and presented in the best possible fashion. >> i agree. your role is to help them tell the story. i don't recall going to a candidate for office and telling them what they must believe.
you must be ain a circumstance where you can say that if you go out there and say something, there will be consequences. if you can live without, that is fine. on the king's campaign, he said that he would rather lose a political campaign and lose a war. that was his aidposition and he meant it. those four positions that or injury as in the moment of the campaign turned to we helped to advise some of the consequences and how he must communicate. you never imprint your beliefs onto a candidate in my experience.
>> my job is not to tell candidates what to think or to influence them. my responsibility is to help them communicate with the public. i think that voters are smart and they can disagree with you on an issue or a set of issue. if they believe that you stand up for what you believe and that you are on their side, the differences [inaudible] i try to help them communicate with people.
>> some people have to learn about the consequences. if you look at their record, they have had two costs. you're absolutely right. i will execute on what you tell me to do but you'll have me here because i think that you will know something about it. it is nice whether you work in politics, a bank, a schoolteacher, you can get to a place where you're comfortable to say that i'm here because you have asked me to be here. >> one reason i would posit that
there has been more partisanship and poison is that it has become a few of both consultants, good politicians that plane to the pace works better than playing to the center. this is a correct thing and whether there has been more. >> i don't know that people play to the base more. and there are any differences between different groups. you can find out some much more about what they are doing all
day long. in that time span, there will be more things to create differences with the other candidate. the other pieces is frankly that the times demand a more well- rounded perspective of our candidates. whether we like that or not, that is a reality. whether it is their personal lives, values, policies, each thing becomes of equal importance. what feels like a more personal and poisonous environment is only that because so many of the candidate's life. >> when you have the 2008 mccain
campaign, did you have a conscious decision to not go that route? >> i thought that it was miss characterized. it was about plane to the base. we did well in the center of the electorate. part of the strategy that call rovkarl rove was to turn out of every republican voter. before this, we were lacking compared to the democratic party. they took a great leap forward. it was a very successful program.
that the >> i was on the other side of the campaign and my perspective was that the bush campaign and did have a basic strategy. my evidence would be the following. if you want to understand the campaign, you can look at where they are spending their dollars and it will tell you what their strategy is. if you look at the strategy come
what you would see that they had a base market. -- strategy, you would see that they had a base market. it was a very successful strategy. the president got reelection at a difficult time. there is not a lot of job creation during his first term. they overcame that. it wasn't turned out about 2004. it will be in 2010 about who has the more energized base. the republican base will be more
energized because of what has been happening with the economy, what happens with the spending program, what happens on the democratic side. it was correct that in 2004, you can call it a base or a turn out but it was all designed about giving republicans the chance to get out and vote in higher numbers. >> let me go to the whole panel. give me one or two suggestions for reducing the amount of poison in the political system. did you want, although i would prefer you put it off to later, we would make the counter argument that it is difficult to have poisoned.
we will leave that argument aside. >> you will have greater exposure and the people involved. this i does not mean that people cannot have a world war on each other. part of it is that you have to take some cues from your candidate. i think that candidates have a role in this to look at their consultants and look at the expectations. i don't have the level of familiarity with the mccain campaign. it is one thing that president obama said that he would
tolerate and what he would not tolerate. in the instances where boundaries were overstepped both in the primary when i worked with clinton and in the general, it has been pretty well documented where he laid a lot down on his staff. >> i think in the last campaign both candidates tried very hard to reduce unfair partisanship and say that they were the type that could reach across the aisle and take this away from the bidders patterson divide. mccain had proof of the pudding. -- reach across the aisle and take away from this bitter partisan divide. >> the most immediate way to reduce the poison of politics would be to convince the press not to cover conflict almost exclusively. when i used to teaching college, i would start my lecture with
conflict = coverage. if you want to get attention, attack someone. as long is that equation remains intact and the substance of politics is given short shrift compared to conflict over almost nothing, then we will continue to have a politics that drives itself by conflict. >> has that been exacerbated by television? >> technology, absolutely. >> it did not take long for this to be the fault of the media. i was at cnn and huffington opposed during the last election. -- post during the last election. there was more substance covered by the media than there has been
in recent memory. there was more real estate to cover. whether it was 24 hour cable or whether it was just unlimited online space. the audience's appetite for substance was pretty substantial. there is no question dec6:00 tho the 6:00 to 8 30:00 times bass has those issues. this comes back to the hot candidate. -- this goes back to the candidate. pointing out to the issues in an aggressive way is what of the electorate needs. i'm not sure that there is that fixed. >> often times the media
conflates the issues because we live in momentous times. there are different viewpoints about how to solve the country's problems and they should be aired. in this country, we don't ramallah to scott towels at each other -- we don't throw molotov cocktails at each other. i agree with what has been said it is up to the candidates to set the tone. in the mccain campaign, he forbade the use of jeremiah wright because he knew what an explosive issue that would be ended metastasizing out of the campaign's control. -- and it would metastasizing out of the campaigns control. the ratings are driven by in each markets. the lowest common denominator of
both parties who say the most outrageous things with the most shrill voice are the people who are most likely to get covered. while that might not impact the american people, it does make the political debate more course because it squeezes out the more serious people who are able to go out and articulate what the differences are on a wide range of issues. >> the purpose of campaigns is to show differences. we all have an obligation to tell our story based on facts, facts that we can document. if we use metaphors, analogies, we need to fairly portray what the position or history or background is. the press plays on important
role as fact checkers and referees in this debate between the campaign's ads and speeches and statements. i wish the press would be more aggressive about that in some cases. in the end come od, we have cams beyond the press. we have third-party groups. often, we are vendors to those and we have to take responsibility. it is unfair for campaigns for the press to take some anonymous blog and treat it as fact or journalism when it is not. we get a lot of trouble because of the third party that starts a
fight with an unfair charge and then we piled on each other. >> i agree with most of the thoughts here. the electorate is smart when they are given the facts. the candidates perceived as running negative campaigns are the ones that are not winning. it is not that they're not running those campaigns but those perceived as running a more negative campaign are the ones who are not winning. you saw that in virginia this last cycle. the media has a stronger role to play in terms of being a referee. they need to let the public know what is a fact. >> remember when the mccain
campaign said that barack obama called sarah palin and take? it was the media that shut that fight down. >> i am a recovering journalist. there was no reason for three days of cable tv talk shows to be talking about it. >> it was the campaign talking about it and the media replayed what obama said and what the comment was. >> don't you think that if cable had ignored that silly little thing, it would have died down? >> i think that these commercials are written for cable. edu a small one and you hope that cable expands it. -- you do a small one and you hope that cable expands that.
the accelerate the fight. in some respects, the media is willing. in other respects, that issue i distinctly recall the media shutting it down. >> we would have more fun if they accelerated the fight over substance. coverage is there and we can get our coverage out through free media rather than having to pay for it. >> there are members of media in the audience. with so much on line, it is difficult to know which is confirmed verses someone's e- mail message about bursters.
i am curious about when the media news organizations will come together and said on online standard. i don't know if it is part of a network, the seal of journalism. something that lets consumers know what is the following is media ethics. part of that is not practical. >> if the public did not know what was fact and not fiction, barack obama would not be president. if the public believe what they read, he would not be president. >> those are examples of what i am talking about.
>> this happened in the race with coleman. >> someone wrote a blog for the magazine and that ends up showing in a paid ad by one of the third-party independent groups as a fact. here is a fact and it was completely erroneous and there was no substance. it runs because someone ran it on a blog. what happens is that they're going into the paid advertising. >> let's talk about the digital technology which allows more peer to peer communication, more niche communication. is there something in the technology compared to the technology of broadcast tv and the 50's or 60's that leads to more polarization? >> more accountability.
go to the lieberman reelection campaign in connecticut. with the level of anonymity on a statewide race with people blocking and writing at a local level, the vitriol it passed the candidates and individual on the campaign. people making up things, the most hateful things of mid-level staffers. i had a staffer call me in tears one night at very upset. she is number 4 out of 12 kids from chicago. she said, what do i tell my little brothers who were seen this on the blog about me? there are people who hate joe lieberman and are writing this about me. >> a couple of years ago i said
i assume that the nominees would be obama and mccain. they were both at the candidate he was some more post partisan and last divisive at least in the public mind set. there were many people saying how could you make that case. how do you make an ad or campaign based upon that? >> you saw this happen in the coleman race.
>> you cannot impose your will on voters. the whole exercise that we go through is to try to discover what the voters are, what they're thinking, what they're feeling, and what motivates them. >> there is a domicile requirement. if someone like you did and said that i want the centerpiece of my campaign to be that we will bring the parties together and bring people together around a common goal and a common mission, i would say okay. we have to connect this to the economic anxiety that we feel today.
we have to understand that what we want to do makes your lives easier in terms of jobs, employment, security. that is the only way to do it. to go and find a way for that to be the answer to the question that voters are posing to their candidates. >> in every town hall meeting that i saw, john mccain did that part where he said that he would reach across the aisle.
>> i worked for governor schwarzenegger and ran his campaign. it was a post partisan campaign. there were short issue contrasts. campaigns are a contest of idea. post partisanship means that we don't question each other's motives or intentions. the other party has a bad intention. on health care, i think it is misguided but it is not borne out of malice towards the american people. we should not say in our campaigns, criticizing your opponent's record or contrasting ideas is inappropriate.
to impose a silly self censorship because that is not what the country is about. >> there must be some thoughts or questions. just raise your hand. >> [inaudible] >> when i was growing up, we had senator boggs who represented the white suburbs, the black inner city. he ended up being a great part of the compromises that were done in civil-rights. as soon as they left the stage, it was carved up. then you had an inner-city district and a suburban district. that is example of a polarizing
first election where gerrymandering will not be as much as a factor because we took more seats than we should have last time. we will have some anti- competitive seats where democrats won in districts that has significant independent votes. this will be the first time in three or four congresses where it gerrymandering will be less of an initiative. >> you can look at this two ways. for years and years, most republicans advocated more competitive districts. you don't have gerrymandering. you go out to an election. most of them are competitive content that would mean that congress would be more responsive to what is on the mind of voters. you can make that case.
you are going to have 80%-85% not be competitive, some will have to worry about primaries. it should give people the incentive to work across party lines. maybe we can get some movement going peeress convince appears to go out and do some things that breaks the stereotype of our party and gets some things done. >> aren't there people but have safe seats and they fear a challenge from the right? >> well, there might be in the whole country 15 in each party that really have to worry about
that. if they take advantage of all the perks, even if they vote against the district or their party, there is no reason for them to lose. you would have to be totally incompetent if you worare beinin those districts that are safe. >> what does that say about representation? why go against my constituents? >> on some of the big issues. >> their representatives, are to this supposed to be representatives? >> -- they are representatives, aren't they supposed to be
representatives? >> the stock about this in terms -- let's talk about this in terms of health care. >> july take a poll in my district or me having studied the issue more than anyone, do i do this in the way that i think it is the right policy. i don't think that there is not an elected official that has confronted the issue. most face it once or twice a month. >> suppose there is a complex issue like reforming social security. the social security bill is big. people don't have opinions but everything in that bill. in most cases, most voters believe it is better for the two parties to get together and work across party lines to achieved something and just to pass things by party-line votes. those things don't survive for
the long term. >> [inaudible] >> there are 15 in each party that have to fear primaries. >> in order to achieve a bipartisan policy, you have to get your entire party to get behind things. if you have people in close districts who are competing. i am from tennessee and right now a lot of the democrats are
blue dogs and are very conservative on a lot of democratic issues. health care reform is one of the big ones. >> health care was one of the reasons that a lot of democrats collected in tennessee. how do you go from an electoral standpoint to a policy standpoint? >> there is a legislative agenda that you can achieve if you have the votes.
one of the classic questions that thing charlie was pointing out is, do you want your congressman to go to washington and learn everything he or she can about an issue and use their good judgment? are you voting for them to use their good judgment and a reflection about what they know about your culture or do you want someone who comes in and takes the opinion of the community regardless of what they learn in washington and execute on that? i suspect that most successful alexi officials -- elected officials have done some of both. that is what the voters and constituents have to say. this is what i expected you. this is what i want you to do. >> i think that the voters in
i am a democrat living in a republican world. it has been a very tough eight years and a very tough additional four years. i would like to discuss stability. -- civility. >> does it sell? and how can you bring stability back if you believe in your heart -- civility back if you believe that in your heart? >> i think that when people lose their head or lose their cool -- and that does not mean you disagree -- do not disagree vehemently -- that is when voters lose respect for you. someone who goes off without a tangent will pay a price will voters, i think. >> civility will return to american politics if politicians pay a price for not practicing it. what has happened is that it is like what happened a generation
ago, when at media consultants like me and television ads became important in stead of party bosses that anointed candidate to represent them. suddenly this became a powerful force and could go beyond the structure of the party. what happened at right now is equivalent to that. the internet and the ability to communicate and to raise money through it is now empowered and all whole new side of politics. the part that is getting empowered in our country is the french of both parties. -- fringe of both parties. now you can call the president of the united states of wire in a state of the union and raise half a million dollars. the lack of civility will be rewarded. >> but how do we punish rather than celebrate in this new medium?
somebody stands up in the congress of the united states during a state of the union and says "you like." how come the person did not get punished? >> the voters have to do it. >> nobody in either caucus supported what he did. the rebuked him and said that he should apologize. there's a lot more civility that goes on in washington than in civility. but the civility is not news. i will not try to bash the media, but we had an earlier discussion about comprehensive immigration reform, where a truly bipartisan group of senators got together and almost got it done. not quite, but there are a large number of democratic and republican senators working through the process.
that was in 2007. because john mccain was simultaneously running for president, even though he and senator kennedy or the two leaders of the bill, you never saw them together in public during those discussions for comprehensive immigration reform. it was because kennedy said the mccain, we cannot show up and run a tv camera. you will lose new hampshire. it was also helped depress promotes anability -- in civility. >> sometimes the only way you get hurt is through incivility. we did it to george bush and now republicans are doing it to barack obama.
you don't have to do it through the media. you watch c-span on saturday when the house was voting on the healthcare bill, and use all those women congressman tried to make their point about the stupak and the men on abortion, and one after another the republicans would stand up and object an object to not let anyone speak. they did that for 45 minutes. >> just speak. >> you're talking about mobilizing the basis and how they fringe is rewarded for saying extreme things. what is the future of the independent view -- the independent voter? will they get this lot -- will they get lost? >> that is a great question.
>> in the two election that just happened and virginia and new jersey, the independents certainly true that election. you have to continue to talk the language that independents want to hear. you have to turn out the strong partisans on either side as well. [inaudible] dollar>> we did not need microp. i will just follow. [inaudible] >> it is significant, but again
there are some big issues where people just disagree, or you're not going to get the two parties together on some fundamentally different things. but unless leaders from each party at least try on the big issues to do something in the nature of a consensus, it will do -- it will never hand -- it will never happen. >> way in the back. >> i feel like you're focusing on the behavior of the politicians. one of the key components to the way politics is seen right now is through the media. a lot of the discussion focuses on how the media is portraying politician and slanting the current news. you can see this on fox news and msnbc throughout the political spectrum. >> i might as well start with rachel.
>> was that freudian? dollars no, i mean kiki. you are a cnn person. >> the answer is, you've got 24 hours of cable channels to fill. you have to pick and choose about everything. if people are attracted to a conflict, it plays over and over again. but the difference between the media and cable-tv and a lot of journalists really resenting, who really resent being lumped in with cable tv, or at least the four hours at night on fox and msnbc that dominate that people's perception of cable-tv, as opposed to the most of the day when it is more straight
news, is that it is opinion tv. i don't think anyone pretends that it is not. i actually do not think that the viewers are told in that thinking that it is not opinion tv. -- that the viewers are fooled. our ratings are down because people actually like opinions. they are not interested in the straight news, as it were. i think that the viewers are much smarter than the conversation is allowing. they can distinguish between opinion tv and news, and they know when they are reading mainstream newspapers and getting a straight factual story. i don't think you survey voters are people in general, they feel confused by the information that they get. sometimes you do not -- you
don't get your pick of what you want. but i don't think it is confusing to people. >> i am going to get been so much trouble. but here goes. i'm a big believer in the free market. i think voters have the responsibility, but i also think -- i have spent most of my time is a communications director -- i think we make a huge surprise -- we make a mistake if we assume that everyone who watches fox news blows like roger ailes. so i'm going to continue to go on that network. there's an editorial side to that network, and there are people that i work with again and again and again. and at the white house calls them out, that is an editorial debate. when we say that there is no audience that monolithic, we had a better chance at reaching people.
as a partisan press staffer, i have to pay attention to that, and make sure that the rest of my party is with me and my candidate is with me so that i use every avenue that i can get into a discussion. do i think boxes made inappropriate decisions? -- fox news has made inappropriate decisions? sure, but that does not mean i cannot take my health care plan to jim engle. >> it is a profound transition from television to the social media world. when the tv show match went on the air, 100 million people watched it. today the biggest show, of maybe 20 million or 40 million on the finality of "american idol." 300 million people, and a top rated cable shows have an
audience of 4 million people. relatively small against the population but gargantuan in a 300-channel tv universe. people are watching politics across the cable networks. it is an audience share of combined of 7 million people among those cable networks. that is the political audience. is no different than their mediterranean cooking channel or the italian cooking channel. people go to places that they saw some light, where they want their opinions reinforce. you do not sit waiting for the radio the play your favorite song anymore. you plug in your ipod and you get to choose what you're exposed to. that reality, coupled with what we were talking about earlier, that if you shout wire it the president of the united states and the result is that you
raise $1 million in the next 24 hours -- you shout liar at the president of the united states and the result is that you raise $1 million in the next 24 hours, that has results of our civic discourse. dollars quickly say your question to gather and then we will let the panel wrap up. >> this of all political ads. no one will unilaterally disarm. no one candidate will swear off those ads. in my mind, if you look back to the senate race in the early 1990's between chuck robb and oliver north were at their work as that chuck robb is a free bracing cocaine using candidate. and then the other sayyaf adds -- the other side had ads about
ollie north running for congress. where is the line? >> [inaudible] the premise of this, taking the poison at a partisanship. you mentioned that the beginning that you wanted the panel is to talk about whether partisanship is really a negative thing, if it is poison. when partisanship can be good, whether there is a way to make partisanship less -- perceive the less like boys and among the american people. is there a way we can get people to understand that politics is about conflict, about people with different perceptions and ideologies, that we should celebrate that rather than denigrate differences just on principles? >> the common theme is when does
it really cross the line? let's start at that end. dollars i'll pass to steve. >> charlie. dollars things have to be fact- based. you have to tell the true story and you do not cross the line of personal attacks unless it is really legitimate. i lifted the campaign and that was not the north campaign talking about robb using drugs, those are independent expenditure groups. they had no place in the process. >> if you cross the line with really ugly adds, incendiary ads that are unfair, i think you will be punished by the voter by almost every incident. they do not typically work. the market of our politics, that is how would ultimately is regulated. >> i think we saw that this past year in 2008, with the pig and
the celebrity and and we saw it again with jon corzine calling chris christie fat in new jersey. the voters did not like that. it reinforce something that they already did not like about jon corzine, he was not focused on their problems. i think there is some back fire, but i would end with the point that the one who asked about independent voters made. the dirty secret of partisan campaign strategists is that is the independent voter that has all the power here. everybody focus on the right and left, but really the independent voter is the one making the decisions. >> good point. >> i actually work for chuck robb in the campaign that made the ads. we tried to convince people, and we had tough ads. but as i recall, we did not say
all in north was a liar. reagan said ollie north was a writer. -- was saying liar. if it is accurate and powerful, delivered. >> whether it is present or other media, what is fair game? their record, their rhetoric, and those things that are relevant. if someone's job getting at the why and relevant? no. did you fix the ticket? that makes irrelevant. -- that makes it relevant. >> we are not having a very partisan time compared to the election of andrew jackson and many other periods. john adams for someone in jail
under the alien and sedition acts. you like that idea? but they really did find common ground when it came to certain big issues. whether issues of war and peace or on the economy, thomas jefferson and alexander hamilton, about apart as you can get, did find ways to come to a certain compromise. i think it's an element that with a loss, but the ability to find common ground and make some compromises. franklin once said that compromises don't make great heroes, but they do make good great democracies. if you are a compromiser, you're considered and principled today. i truly want to thank the panel, very good. we appreciate it so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2009] you have a very short break while the next panel comes up. thank you. [unintelligible] >> president obama will address the nation on his new strategy for the war in afghanistan tuesday night from the u.s. military academy at west point 3 we will have live coverage at 8 eastern. the president will travel to copenhagen for the global climate conference. he will be in copenhagen on december 9 before heading to
oslo to accept the nobel peace prize. dollars al coverage of the hearing of the long-term effects of head injuries in the national football league continues tonight with testimony from medical professionals and former players tiki barber and others. that is at 9:00 tonight eastern. dollars on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 39, 3/5 of the senate had in voting and the for a furtive, the motion is agreed to. dollars the senate moves its health care bill to the floor. starting monday in through december, followed the entire debate on how the bill would affect taxes, abortion, and medicare live on our companion network, c-span2, the only network that brings you the senate gavel-to-gavel. >> coming this phase given --
this thanksgiving, american icons. beginning thursday night at 8 eastern, the supreme court, home to america's highest court, reveals the building in exquisite detail to the eyes of supreme court justices. at friday, the white house, inside america's most famous home. beyond the velvet ropes, our visit shows the grand public places as well as those rarely seen space is 3 and saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the capit ol, one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons, three memorable nights at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and get your own copy of american icons, $24.95 plus shipping and handling. order online. >> now to a news conference indian prime minister manmohan singh manmohan.
-- not to a news conference with indian prime minister manmohan singh. this is about 40 minutes. >> of very good morning to you all of you and welcome to the press conference by the prime minister of india, manmohan singh. he is joined by that debbie be chairman of the planning commission to his right, and his national security adviser. he will be making a opening statement, thereafter he would be happy to take a few questions. we will now listen to his opening statement.
>> ladies in town and, of very good morning to each and every one of you. before i say something about the outcome of my visit to the united states, i wish to say a few words on the eve of the first anniversary of the terrorist attack in mumbai last year on november 26. this is a day of remembrance and of paying homage to all the innocent civilians and our brave men in uniform who lost their
lives in one of the worst terrorist attacks our country has ever seen. on behalf of our nation, i would like to send a message to each and everyone of their families and friends, that we share their grief with a very heavy heart. we will never forget the suffering they have gone through. our hearts are with them as they pray for the souls of their loved ones. the attack in mumbai was a calculated attempt by forces outside of our country to destabilize our seco -- are secular polity, and undermine
the country's economic and social progress. such forces should have no doubt that they will fail in a nefarious attempts. the supreme sacrifice that so many of our countrymen and women, and those from far distant foreign lands will not be made in maine. india's commitment to an open democratic and secular polity will not be shaken by such assaults on our way of life. our government will not rest until we have brought the perpetrators of this horrible crime to justice.
this is our solemn duty. we've taken up the matter with all the forces in our command and the government of pakistan. we have asked that the perpetrators of this attack and their supporters to be tried and punished. the infrastructure of terrorism and all say haven's -- safe havens have to be dismantled. within the country, we have taken several measures to strengthen our security and and intelligence systems. an effective record -- response mechanism has been put in place. we will take more such steps
until we're satisfied that we have people who -- foolproof arrangements in place. i wish to assure the nation that strengthening internal security is the top priority of our government. we will leave no stone unturned to safeguard and protect the lives of our citizens. i now will say a few words about my visit to the united states. ladies and gentlemen, i had completed a very productive visit to the united states. based on my discussion president barack obama and other american leaders, including vice- president biden and secretary of
state mrs. hillary clinton, i am confident that we can not only continue but also strengthen the momentum of our relations built up in the last four years. president obama recognized the important role india-u.s. relations can play in meeting the global challenges of the 21st century. we haven't agreed that there is a historic opportunity -- we have agreed that there is a historic opportunity to work together for world peace and stability on the basis of our shared values, consensus, and cooperation. we discussed several ideas on how we can work together to
accelerate global economic recovery. putting it on a more sustainable and balanced path in the future. we welcome president barack obama's strong commitment to ensuring a comprehensive and balanced outcome at the climate change conference in copenhagen. we have agreed to work together bilaterally and with all other countries to ensure this positive outcome. we have established a framework for taking an hour relations board. the joint statement issued reflects our priorities for future collaboration in education, and health, and clean
energy and energy security, defense, counter-terrorism, and science and technology. we agree on the early and full implementation of our civil nuclear cooperation. this paves the way for transfers of high technology items to india. i have had a very good discussion with business leaders. they showed keenness to expand business with india. i'd give them the commitment of our government to facilitate foreign investment in india and to pursue the reform measures. president obama and nine -- i
urged him to assist our two governments in building a more vibrant trade and economic partnership. president obama was very gracious and aware of the threats that both our countries face from terrorism. and the need for us to work together to combat it. we have agreed to strengthen cooperation in the area of counterterrorism. president obama told me that the united states highly values india's role in the reconstruction and development of luck and a stand. we had similar views and establishing peace and prosperity in the asia-pacific.
i also met with speaker of the u.s. house of representatives, madam nancy pelosi, who is a good friend of india, and a number of leading members of the house and senate. in all of these meetings, as well as those with the business community and strategic experts, i found an enormous amount of goodwill from them. there is great warmth, respect, and admiration for india matched by a genuine desire to work with india and to strengthen our strategic partnership. later today, i will be meeting members of the indian community
in the united states. the plate and magnificent role in bringing our two countries closer to each other. we are proud of their achievements and would like to see them prosper and excel. their contribution to american society and economy was something which all leaders i met referred to in my meetings with them. i am most grateful to president barack obama and the first lady, madam michelle obama, for the warmth of their hospitality, and for honoring me and my wife has their first state visitors. president obama has accepted my invitation to visit india, and
we look for to receiving him and his family in india and in 2010. how would also like to make -- i would also like to make a special mention of the special friendship that both vice president dr. joseph biden and secretary of state madame hillary clinton had shown to india. we deeply value their personal commitment to our relations. i leave with a sense of confidence that might visit has deepened mutual understanding between india and the united states. setting new directions on our strategic partnerships and away the will advance our national interest. i thank you.
>> the prime minister will be happy to take a few questions. go ahead. >> yesterday you said you are about to complete the nuclear deal. it was just a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. now you say there are few steps that remain. did you get stuck over some differences? did president obama help? >> we had a very good discussion, and at the highest
levels, i had been assured by the united states leadership that the government of the united states remains committed to early implementation of the civil nuclear cooperation. there are some minor problems with regard to agreeing on the the processing dedication facilities that it mentioned. there are a -- they are not insurmountable, and in the next couple weeks -- couple of weeks, we can solve them. as far as the liabilities legislation, the indian cabinet has already approved the legislation and we will be going to parliament for that legislation that we require. dollars can i request everybody
to please put their phones on the silent mode? thank you very much. >> i refer to your overstatement about the anniversary of the mumbai attack. this morning, the news from pakistan that the judge in the case there has seven formal suspect. your reaction to that, and you are not going from here to other heads of government. the will be a pakistani foreign minister there. will there be resumption of talks between india and pakistan there? >> as far as bringing the perpetrators of the mumbai massacre to court, our position is very clear. says the conspiracy was hatched basically in pakistan, it is the
obligation of the government of pakistan to do everything in their power to bring these perpetrators to justice. i have not seen the report that you have mentioned, but i am confident that every step that leads in that direction -- it is our strong feeling that the government of pakistan could do more to bring to court people who are still running around in the country, free to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism. i can only hope that there will be progress. with regard to the prime ministers' conference, there will of course be meetings between various delegations, and we simply cannot wish away
pakistan. therefore, whenever politicians meet, we always have a tendency to discuss mutual issues. >> mr. prime minister, your objections of the council of foreign relations. in your interaction, he said that india does not want iran to acquire nuclear weapons and will abide by u.n. sanctions. you also said that you welcome president obama's our reach toward iran and that perhaps a dialogue could emerge that could eventually lead to a security 3 the credibility that india has with iran and the u.s., and an historic opportunity for peace,
it is their role that india can play in terms of bringing about this dialogue? one of the things that make even congressman and senators who are ardent supporters of india go ballistic is india's relationship with iran. >> india enjoys good relations with both the united states and iran. with regard to the nuclear weapon ambition of iran, i have stated in his position on a number of occasions, and that is well known. but in my meetings with the leaders of the u.s., i did mention that before i came to washington, eight days earlier the foreign minister of iran was in new delhi. i asked him about the state of play with regard to
negotiations on the nuclear program of iran. he said to me they have been getting good messages from the new obama administration, that he was hopeful that engagement with the five powers will succeed, and if that comes about, as neighbors of iran, living in that region, we have 5 million citizens who work and earn their livelihood there, given our dependence we would welcome an outcome of engagement between iran and applied, and i sincerely hope that this engagement would be -- between iran and the five, and i sincerely hope that this engagement would come about.
>> this must come up in the discussions. china is attempt to fix exchange rate has caused problems for the economy, for the united states, and for india. did you have any discussions with president obama on cooperating to change the chinese attitude? and china has been adopting a more aggressive note with our border dispute. did president obama and you discuss what could be done to attain down that rhetoric? >> as far as your second question is concerned, i mentioned to the president that like other countries we welcome
the peaceful rise of china. we're also engaged with china. of the last five years, we have been discussing the border problem, and meanwhile our economic relations have grown in their intensity china is one of our major trading partners. therefore, we are all in favor of the rest of the world engaging china. but i made mention in recent weeks and months, but we have focused a greater deal of assertiveness on the part of china. i did not see any help from the united states. we just reviewed the world situation and i am confident that trooper a bus full negotiations between our two countries will resolve outstanding issues.
-- that true personal relationships -- personal negotiations between our two countries will resolve outstanding issues. we talked about reducing and correcting the global imbalances with the responsibilities of various countries. now that the united states is engaged in an exercise, the president mentioned to me, the united states cannot play the same role in the future in stimulating global growth that happened in the past. there for other centers of growth and stimulus have to merge. it is in that context that we had a fairly good discussion about the evolving global economy. but there was no specific discussion of exchange rate of any one currency.
>> recent remarks, that india is prepared for a limited war against pakistan. how do you respond to a statement like that? and india has been talking to the united states about pakistan with the concerns that you have. did you get any concrete promises from the united states on how they could possibly better monitor their aid to pakistan, and more pressure on pakistan for the trials? >> let me state categorically that india regards a strong, purposeful, peaceful pakistan to be in our national interest. we have worked in that
direction. we continue to work in that direction. i have also said publicly to the american media that pakistan faces no act what so ever -- no threat whatsoever from our country. that is the standard position of the government of india. any other statement distorted out of context should not, i think, get away when i have stated categorically that pakistan faces no threat whatsoever from our side. >> considering the situation in pakistan, are you concerned that the taliban -- pakistani taliban can infiltrate into india? and also that they would reach the pakistani nuclear bombs?
>> let me say that we are worried about the activities of the taliban in the mainland cities and towns of pakistan, and that is a threat to security not only of pakistan but also a threat to security of our country. >> de believe the obama administration can help put pressure on pakistan, given the new decisions that that would likely take about afghanistan? should pakistan acted out terrorists -- act against terrorists, did that figure in your talks with mr. obama? >> i have discussed this matter with the president and with the
secretary of state. i have been assured that u.s. influence will work in the direction if you have asked for. -- that you have asked for. >> compared your 2005 visit, this visit may be more on ceremony and lessen content per your comments about that? and did you see bipartisan support for india in this congress? >> have not come about any resistant to india's role. our involvement in the construction and development of afghanistan is a positive development. have not felt any -negative
vibes in that area. i am very satisfied with the outcome of my meetings. i go back to india, convinced that india and united states can and will do lots of things together to strengthen our strategic partnership in economics, and trade, and climate change, in energy, in counter-terrorism, and in all major activities. [speaking in the in] -- [speaking the indiaindian]
come the message from u.s. authorities about strengthening our cooperation and intelligence gathering. >> you referred to 2611 in your opening statement. -- 26/11 in your opening statement. what your thoughts? >> i have said what i want to say in my statement. the 26/011 attacks should not have taken place. but it did take place. it is a cause of deep sorrow and concern to me but this prime minister -- both as prime
minister and an ordinary citizen of our country. 200 citizens oall hours perished in this onslaught, foreign nationals also are victims of this costly act. i sincerely hope that the world's conscience will be aroused to take affected action against terrorism and associated activities in the hope that our planet can be made free of discourage for the benefit of all people in all countries. -- of this scourge for the benefit of all people in all countries. >> deal expect u.s. support for
permanent seat for india and the security council? >> there was a general discussion of the changes that need to be made in the global process these of government. -- global processes of government. i think there is a statement to that effect. but there were no specific commitments or asked for by us about the membership of the security council. >> i have two questions related on the economy. dollars kindly limit yourself to one question. >> welwhat we are facing --
>> put the microphone closer. >> all they are facing global economic uncertainty and why we in america face economic woes, india has been able to sustain its economic growth to 8% annually. how was your government unable to achieve this and what can industrialized lessons -- industrialized countries learn from this? >> why it had such a limited effect on our economy is the strong domestic demand and our economy. we are more dependent -- we are less dependent and that has really helped us in this time of crisis to ensure that our economy continues to grow at the rate of about 6.5% per annum,
despite the onslaught of our export markets. we've also been fortunate that our domestic savings rate is as high as 35% of our gross domestic product. our investment grade in recent years has been about 37% of our gdp. if we maintain a strong commitments to modernize and expand our infrastructure, i am confident that with all the emphasis on inclusive growth, of ensuring that the benefits of growth reach out to all sections of our society, particularly the rural areas, we will be able and two years' time to go back to the growth part of the 8% or 9%
once again. dollars thank you. welcome to the u.s. my question, as far as 26/11 is concerned, today they are asking the same question. what is the assurance from the obama administration for people who have relatives in india that pakistan will not act again? u.s. money is going to pakistan and pakistani money is going to the terrorists. >> i do not understand him. did you understand him? [laughter]
>> i am sorry, mr. prime minister. [inaudible] what assurance can you give that pakistan will not act again against india and 26/11 will not be repeated? >> hi sincerely hope that the combined pressure of india and the united states will ensure that the costly attacks that took place on 26/11 does not happen once again. but i do recognize the obligation of the government of india to protect its citizens. we will strengthen our internal security measures to the greatest extent possible. we will do all that is necessary to assure that there is no repetition of this costly pacacf