Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  July 7, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EDT

7:00 am
the highest childbirth cost in the world. from egypt a guest. eric trager, "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." on this sunday, july 7, 2013. immigration tops the list of issues awaiting members. well, the "washington post" on its front page today looks at childhood hunger and the role of government in feeding hungry children. we'd like to hear from you this morning on what you think the government's role should be in feeding kids. here are the numbers to call. democrats. epublicans and independents.
7:01 am
you can also find us on line. send us tweet or join the conversation on facebook. you can also email us. well, the front page of the "washington post" today, driving away hunger. eli reports and photographs by michael williamson reports from tennessee and look at a hokal program funded by the government helping to feed kids. they point out that during the summer when children leave school there's a gap in the nutrition that's available to them because they don't have the access to some of those school food programs. let's dig into the story here. you saw that front page picture. it says that this is about a bust a bus, the lunch express and the driver's name is going around to feed kids directly instead of having the children
7:02 am
have to come to them, the driver's name was rick bible nd his 66-mile trek marked the government's latest attempt to solve a rise in childhood hunger that's been worsenen for 77 years. -- for seven consecutive years.
7:03 am
>> 10th "washington post" story talks about some of the families that benefit from this service and the efforts that are taken. here's an example of what is seen as an ant dote for a growing epidemic of childhood hunger. chocolate milks, a baloney sandwich, each meal bought with $3.47 of taxpayer money. what do you think the government's role should be in feeding kids? on the democrats line, good morning, lynn. caller: yes, we are absolutely responsible for feeding the poor. in particular, children. the republicans, they argue about abortion, yes, they want to bring them into the world to starve them to death.
7:04 am
if it were left to them, we would be like bangladesh back in the late 1960's, early 1970's. we subsidized. republicans allow mcdonald's and wal-marts to be subsidized because they want to keep minimum wage as low as they can so the corporations make money. 75% of the people on food stamps today work for a living. republicans will not allow the poor to make a living wage. host: lynn, listen to these comments on facebook and stand stay on the line so you can respond. one says i fed my kids. the government didn't chip in one thin dime. and another rites many and says feeding children is a local problem not a federal problem. what's your response? >> local? no. some localities, some cities do not have the money.
7:05 am
food banks run empty. and as far as the gentleman that's able to feed his kids, maybe so but the man that works at mcdonald's to feed his child and have to draw food stamps is just as worthy as the gentleman i'm sure that's a republican. host: let's go on to some other callers. to michigan, kevin is an independent. hi kevin. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: good. what do you think about this to snick caller: i think that all parties should get together and be able to feed these kids and is s wondering, actually, -- host: all right that was kevin. let's go to virginia on the republicans line. caller: hello. host: let us know what you
7:06 am
think about the government's role in feeding kids. caller: i feel it should be the parents' role and i feel we should help the parents if they get them imum wage to more money and teach them to feed their children proper food. i don't feel it's the government's role to do this. i'm talking as a human being, you bring children in the world, you should be taught to take care of them. it's your responsibility. we can teach people and that's what we need to do. host: comments on our facebook page julie writes in and stays government should make sure the -- ican workers cannot be should not be kept from taking care of their kids. >> yes i have been retired for
7:07 am
23 years. the problem today is as i see it is when i started working in the 40's in the 1940's if you worked 30 hours a week, you were aful time employee. today they are hiring everybody for 30 hours so it's not 35 hours and you don't have to get benefits. the netherlands and switzerland , they got some brains over there and don't have a bunch of cotton picking bankers like jamie diamond who made $21 million in 2011, god only knows what he made last year, they ought to do a program and one more thing caterpillar last august hoped the factor in marion, indiana. no union. factory workers, $12 an hour for working at a factory.
7:08 am
people don't really know what's going on and i wish if brian lamb is standing over there some place he would do a program on a living wage and how much would it be? $12? $14 an hour? i have no idea the reason the japanese plants, we got a honda plant in mariesville and the reason they don't have a union is because they pay their workers $18 or $19 an hour. but thank you very much for taking my call and have a wonderful day. host: thank you, jerry. and we'll take your suggestion into consideration. you can also share your proposals for topics the washington journal should cover. you can tweet us jerry mentioned his concerns about c.e.o.'s, corporate pay, things like that. here's what is tweeted in. the government should feed children before c.e.o.'s.
7:09 am
and "the washington post" also on its front page today looks at the preanniversary of the dodd-frank law which is happening quite soon. here's the headline. pay rule still unwritten amid corporate push. we'll look at this other story in the news briefly points and out even three years after dodd-frank was signed into law, here's one rule that remains unfinished, a requirement for depeens disclose how much more their chief executives make than other employees. and you can find that in "the washington post." we'll look at some other stories in the news today. here's "the san francisco chronicle," a tragic day. there's a scramble for answers after a san francisco airport jet christmas crash killed two people and seriously injured 49 also on many of the front pages are stories about what's hananning in egypt and we'll be talking about that later this morning on c-span.
7:10 am
we'll be looking at what has happened in egypt. who is in charge and what might happen next. the "new york times" has these headlines. morsi spurns deals seeing the military as stained before he was taken out of the power by the military and cracks emerge as egyptians seek a premiere. we're focusing this morning on the government's role in feeding kids. what do you think it should be? from albuquerque, new jersey, on the democrats line. caller: that we are even asking this question is absolutely shame fufment and when we speak of government we need to remember we are the citizenry, we are the government. we are totally responsible for taking care of this problem. and i'm calling from a state that is number one in food insecurity for children. meaning that more children go to bed at night here not knowing when their next meal is
7:11 am
going to come about. i have a family member who works for the wick program. in a part of this city. a number of her children that she teaches live in their cars. she knows that when she teaches during the day the meal she turns out is probably the only meal that many of these children get during the course of the day, and this is exemplary of many of the areas all over the state. this is a shameful thing, a wealthy, wealthy country like our own that we allow any child to go hungry. how do we expect to produce a generation of children that can go to school and think and solve problems if they have to go to school hungry. these people that are twittering in that say this is a local problem, sounds to me like this is the generation we have created here that are totally non-everyone net i can. they are narcissistic,
7:12 am
self-indulgent. they can't think outside of their own box and shame on them. host: betty calling from new mexico mentioned wick, women and infant care. especially in the first three years of life it's important to establishing a good foundation that's critical for academic achievement and economic productivity but according to the usda 16.7 million children under 18 in the u.s. live in households where they are unable to squeeze buntly access consistent food necessary for health. and our caller from new mexico talked about how her state has high food insecurity and the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under the age of 18 are the district of columbia, oregon, new mexico and florida. and the top five states with the best rates in terms of
7:13 am
children who are not going hungry are at north dakota, new hampshire, virginia, minnesota and massachusetts. and says 20% or more of the child population in 36 states and the nation's capital lived in food insecure households in 2010. mark in nevada on our republicans line, hi mark. caller: yes. how are you doing this morning? actually i listened to all your callers and there's a lot of mixed ideas about all this. , ive in a small community and my ex-wife, she was a school teacher, and she witnessed children coming in that are suffering from malnutrition and all that stuff. and the truth is is that children -- kids are having
7:14 am
kids, and they rely on the government to take care of them. and the thing is is that the government does do that, however this parents of these children usually use the money for over things other than food, and you know, the whole point is that i don't want to ound complicated but the liberals seem to think that the government should take care of everybody but the point is if we just tell kids not to have kids, i mean, that would probably kind of solve the problem a little bit. but they are continuing to do that. the community that i live in is a small community, and i see it every day. i came across a child the other day it's 125 degrees and there was a child running around without shoes and the little boy's feet were burning and i called the police, they didn't do anything. the parents were like 20 years old. they don't work.
7:15 am
they don't do anything except collect government benefits and that's the sad thing. the schools are trying their hard toast take care of these children but it's just not working out. like -- >> you brought up some complicated perspectives. one, talking about children in need, but two, you have concerns about what families do with funding that they get. so what would you do? would you bypass families and do what this community in tennessee is doing which is sending this bus around to feed children directly? what are your solutions? caller: obviously children first, but these kids are having kids. having a r-old girl child or a -- like i said, i live in a small town. these things are happening.
7:16 am
i'm sure they happen, you know, for since this country has been born, but people don't work anymore. and there's no jobs and it's -- all they do is sell drugs and these kids are selling drugs and having kids and these little babies are running around starving. host: that's mark in nevada and you saw an image from the "washington post" a teenager caring for her baby sister and it says that she's giving her mountain dew and the caffeine and sugar often keep that you small child and when the kids are in school they get free middle east meals but summer becomes problematic for the kids. hi mike on our independent line. caller: boy, what a great discussion this morning. the woman from minnesota couldn't have said all my thoughts better. whether anybody is political, democrat or republican, i just
7:17 am
don't like the idea that those children aren't democrat or republican. i mean, regardless of what their parents' behavior is, i don't think that giving them a $3.47 meal is going to cost any society any problem. when i think of if anybody could give up 15 minutes of their wage per week, that would have -- we'd have more than enough food for that $3.47 per kid, and how heart felt are those you know what i mean tennessee that are reaching out the that? you know, there's poverty all over. i know of school principles that go out and buy toothbrushes for their kids and because they can't think about their learning because their teeth hurt because they have dental problems and as far as the government's
7:18 am
responsibility, we think of 40% of all of our total wages going government. what small amount it would be feed the most vulnerable people in our country, and i just think it's great. to feed hungry, again, there's always criticism of any waste and any government program. but when you think of the total scope of things, wouldn't bit nice to not have people running around hungry versus buying munitions or anything of waste that you could be for or against, but again, those kids are not democrat or republican and i would, to give them $3.47 a day to make sure that a 3-year-old gets fed, i just think is great. i wish that we would look at the example that tennessee is
7:19 am
showing us. you know, i don't think our poverty rate here is quite as high in wisconsin as it is in tennessee. but we have a lot of poverty here. and thank god that there's you know what i mean our government and in our societies and eh else that see these and see how simple it is. >> mike, can i ask you a follow-up question? caller: sure. host: should there be an age range? a limit on helping feed people until a certain age be it15, 18? a limit? >> caller: i didn't think about the age range. i think the only requirement is if you're hungry. you know, when we had people ck in a different age in the 1930's we had people in long bread lines and i don't think you had to show an i.d. for that. if you're hungry and we have
7:20 am
food to feed people, why not feed them? why buy munition? let's kill two less people and feed our own? it sounds simplistic but all it is is opening up your heart to the people around us, and if i had a hungry child that lived next door to me, i would feed him or her and i don't care what his age is. host: let's look more into this question. this, as we mentioned earlier, the "washington post" looks at a program in tennessee, the lunch express bus that goes around and feeds hungry children during the summer months when they are out of school and it looks at the driver, rick bible and morgan anderson who is a food bank employee who works on the bus as well and outlines how this is all happening and how careful a job they are doing to try and ensure consistency as well as health. government rules trier fwouse
7:21 am
stop for 15 minutes at each trailer park to make sure children ate their lunches on the bus. anderson, the 22-year-old a food bank committee is pursuing her masters in dietary studies and tests the temperature of the coolers every hour and kept an inventory of food in a color-coded binder and feeding extra food chips to the kids and their job enforced a long list of rules, no giving outside seconds because federal government reimburses only 2% of their value and no extra milks and no children taking food home and no free meals for adults over 18 unless they are disainled on anderson's first day she watched three men come onboard sweaty and unshaven after a morning working in the strawberry fields are you under 18? the men ate quickly and left
7:22 am
never returning to the bus on subsequent days and later she worried about them blaming herself for their absence had she scared them away? and were they going hungry because of her in? there's the reality of the people you see on the bus. and we're reading from a piece on the "washington post" called driving away hunger. by michael williamson and asking the question what you think the government's rule should be in feeding kids. tony is up next in fort worth texas on the democrats line. caller: good morning. yes, i think this is a very good discussion this morning. but i think the government should help feed children. i've heard people say that the children are children of children and that kind of thing, does that mean they shouldn't be near the kids are here and the government should have a role in feeding these kids.
7:23 am
i just think that you would think to listen to some of the callers call in that the only hungry children were democratic children. well, not democratic children but children of democratic parents. this goes across party lines and this is a nationwide problem really. and if people saying that no, don't feed the kids or don't feed a hungry person, where's your humanity? it doesn't take a party to decide if a person is hungry if they should eat or not. i just feel like we should do more to feed especially children. host: here are some comments on our twitter page. looks like some nutritional education should come with the food given and parents need good jobs to feed their children. the hash tag jobs and economy.
7:24 am
another republican, high. caller: hi. wow. what a crazy discussion. you know what's funny? i hear all these people say different things but i really feel people don't care about anything. do you hear what everybody is saying? the republicans and democrats and independents. there's a lot of hungry kids out there, you don't even look like you're interested in this to i go. host: well, i'm sorry that you think i'm disinterested. i assure you i am. what are your thoughts on it? >> there's different position bus nobody seems to really care about i. i just don't get it. host: why do you want people to care more? caller: well, it's a big issue, but everybody has an opinion but nobody does anything. that's what i just don't like. host: what do you think people
7:25 am
should do? caller: more. don't you think? i mean you're looking at your papers and doing all your other stuff, i mean are you really interested in this conversation or just doing your job? host: well, i am interested and we do have to show your tweets and the paper. here's what harry tweets in. america is only as strong as our weakest link. becky, turboville pennsylvania is our caller on the line. caller: i am calling in because i am very concerned about what's going on in our country. and this is a federal issue. our government feeds poor, starving children in other countries and what about our own? i am concerned about misguided a woman who commented we just need to educate the parents how to feed their children properly fetishes they don't have the food tore food stamp to get the
7:26 am
food to feed their kids, it doesn't matter how educated they are or not. they don't have the food available and then another man saying kids having kids like that other man said the kids are here. just telling kids not to have kids? how is that working for us so far? it's not so yes the kids are here. we got to worry about feeding them. there was a time. me and my husband are blessed. thank god we have a home and there was a time when only our my husband was working and we had to rely on food stamps to feed our children and i know what it's like and funds should be available to help anyone in need. in our own country. if we can help abroad, why can't we help at home? and yes. cut some of that money we're spending blowing up other countries and fighting wars we shouldn't be involved in and feed and take care of our own.
7:27 am
host: becky, how did your family deal with using food stamps, was it easy to figure out how the qualify for the program and were you able to use them easily in your regular grocery shopping? >> it was. and honestly it's embarrassing because i came from a very poor home and i always thought never am i going to have rely on the government again even though government cheese is pretty good stuff, i must say, but i said never again. well,ly have to live like that and i will never have any children live like that but my husband was in an accident and broke his neck and i worked through that then the next year i was struck with being seriously ill and i could not work any longer and we were stuck and we had to apply and yes, it's embarrassing and shameful and people looking at you like, oh, sure, you really have to use food stamps? i remember when i was on wick at one point i was working and my husband was working and i
7:28 am
applied and got w.i.c. to help feed my twin sons and i had a woman follow me out of the grocery store and said that's a pretty nice car for someone who has to get w.i.c. and yes, us humiliating but when it toms to feeding your children you will do whatever it takes. and america sthufe concept as a whole. we will feed our children no matter what it takes. host: one writes my sister was the one needing food subsidies but she was a teacher. good morning. caller: i'm glad i followed up this laudy because it's so true what we have going on in this country. when we have millions of people listening to rush limbaugh who says if you can't feed your children, first thing they should do is go home and see if there's something in the refrigerator. it's not up to the schools to
7:29 am
feed them and if they can't feed them they can try a dumpster dive. we have millions of people listening to that and believe this is what you should do if a child is hungry they should go in a dumpster and find their food talk about uneveryone net i can, it's terrible what this is coming to. i'm glad to hear so many people calling in saying we should be feed ogg our children and we can give these huge tax breaks to oil companies and big ag and i'm not knocking the small farmer but our money flies in so many other directions but when it comes time to feed the children, they should have to eat out of a zumpster? this is what it should come through. host: whose responsibility do you think it snoub the federal government or i think we lost our caller but we'll throw that question to sharon. houston, texas, republican,
7:30 am
sharon? caller: yes, i was watching your program this morning and on feeding the children i sometimes wonder our government gives noun all these other countries to help them, but we need to look at ourselves first. god gives us a lot of grace here in our country and we have a lot of freedom others don't and i do believe with feeding the children and the needy is important. >> and sharon, we'll throw the question to you. who's responsibility should it be? >> well, i don't think it's necessarily a responsibility. think we all work together living in the united states.liv. we have freedom here. whether their children or adults, they need to be fed. is hollering how we have to have medical
7:31 am
insurance now. a lot people up there are starving and that are going to be fined for not having medical insurance as well? how are they supposed to do that? forithout the food to pay medical? host: we will be talking about the requirements of the federal health care law in about 15 minutes. here is this tweet -- lexington, ky.c, parent, 20m a young years old. i do whatever i can to keep my child. i do whatever i can to put food on the table of my child. the inner city relies too much engrossed restores and fast food -- relies too much on
7:32 am
grocery stores and fast-food when they should try to catch some fish and live off the land. i know that that is kind of, how do i explain this? that sounds perfect coming from kentucky. to live offu able the land? you use hunting, fishing, farming to provide? caller: yes, i have a garden with tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots. it has a lot of the stuff i need. i do when i can. my girlfriend moved in with me and we are very well taken care of because i live off the land. host: thank you, eric. stanley, charlotte, north carolina. hello. caller: thank you. i am a first-time caller. thank you for taking my call.
7:33 am
that my heartve reaches out. we have to feed these children. but someone has to take some kind of fiscal responsibility. these parents, if they are not doing what they should be doing, we need to come down on them and make them understand that it is their responsibility. they are having children and not trying to feed them. they have to get to work and do whatever they have to do. in the stand the economy is not doing well. i understand that a lot of that is a lie. know that there are some people, the food stamps and do not even really feed their children with food stamps. host: what would you do about that, stanley? caller: say that again? host: what would you do about that?
7:34 am
caller: it is a delicate situation. start taking kids out of homes, who would take care of them? but we need to find a way to make parents responsible of taking care of children from the cradle to grave. on "andming up today newsmakers," the new president of the american medical association. she spoke with us on about obesity as a disease. let's listen. clip] -- video clip] >> does this make the insurance company liable? >> i think so. when the ama said that this was
7:35 am
something we wanted to deal with, escalating the conversation on this problem to a significant level, we will look at the things that we must change to help things get better around obesity, hypertension, whenever we choose to study. i do think that they will be a part of this. they want to help us eliminate so much disease and suffering and reduce the cost. host: you can see the entire interview with dr. ardis hoven at 10:00 this morning on "newsmakers." it is also available on our website, we are asking you on open " washington journal" what you think -- if you think the government should be feeding children. this week -- -- tweet --
7:36 am
host: steve, new york. independent caller, your turn. caller: good morning. thank you for this discussion. since lyndon johnson declared war on poverty, the u.s. government has thrown trillions , wherears at this issue hunger and children is only a symptom. it has barely moved the needle one iota. ago a wise man many years made this statement, that the with you will have always. that wise person was giving that answer in response to being chastised by someone who was
7:37 am
preparing him for his burial. the point is that it is not to be used -- before you will have with you always -- it is not -- the poor you will have with you always, that is not to be used as a weapon, it is a fact. it was true to a dozen years ago and it is true today. the follow on statement was that you will have the opportunity to do for them and make use of it, charging us individually to be a part of a solution. or gentleman from tennessee kentucky, that is what he actually did. he had his own garden and supplemented whenever he had done, what ever shortages he had, by raising some of his own
7:38 am
food. a perfectly viable solution. attitudes that have to change. the symptom of the disease is iny manifested in hunger children as just one small piece of it. host: huntington, west virginia, democratic line. welcome. caller: i hope my call is appropriate this time. what i would like to say is this. the man just quoted christ. christ was fond of talking about zachariah in his ministries. this goes out to all the questions this morning. execute true judgment.
7:39 am
show mercy and compassion. the widow, the fatherless, the stranger or the poor. do not use imagined evil against the brother in your heart. years that they should not hear their heart is as adamant as a stone. the lord, the host, has sent his spirit to the former prophets. thank you for your time. host: what does that mean to you? caller: that we are to take care of our brothers and sisters and all of those around us. the poor, those who cannot do for themselves. is christ's ministry. it was not a ministry elaborate
7:40 am
churches and cathedrals. put it right to them. they passed that these laws in this way that it was supposed to be and none of them carried it out in their heart the way that it was supposed to be. just like in zachariah's time. host: michael, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. host: your thoughts on the government's role in feeding children? caller: the government does not belong in that role. the reason being, you cannot say that you are feeding children and at the same time fund planned parenthood. the two do not work. the government belongs out of it. host: do you think there is another group who should play that role? beenr: it has always people. people always tell people.
7:41 am
it is not about government. host: chris, logan, virginia. hello, chris. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: weird. first-time caller. by the way, you are doing a great job taking those calls from california. it is hard, i am sure. to speak briefly, we need to feed these kids. i could use some government assisted with -- assistance with food. i do not have a lot of kids. the government does help families in this area for various reasons. going to help people,
7:42 am
maybe we could group them -- or something. not trying to stereotype, but there are people that take advantage of the system and for those people that choose to do of a maybe make it more controlled environment. maybe these people could be observed more closely. this is just really weird. my eyes have been glued to c- span, i have never watched it before today. i am done. appreciate your time. thank you for taking my call. anyway theds
7:43 am
weekend, federal or state level. that is all i can say. host: tennessee, jim, republican line. caller: good morning. you have got to get your political system working so the you are not creating an environment where it is difficult for the people starting out. do not have a salary for your kids, whenever society is we will have trouble getting a handle on this. the political system is destroying this country. they need to start coughing up
7:44 am
their money to take care of this rest -- this mess. if they make more than $10 per hour, they are stealing money from us. thank you for your time. host -- host: the story comes from nashville, tennessee. the question this morning is about the government's role in feeding children. this piece is called driving away hunger. it was photographed by michael williamson. they are looking at a community in rural tennessee and looking at efforts to feed children over the summer months, when they are not in the school. there is a bus that goes around and find the children themselves. there are strict rules about how much food children are given. they have to stay on the bus and eat it there, they cannot take it home with them.
7:45 am
we have looked at the numbers in this piece in terms of the dollars and cents that come with it. congress has tried to address hungry children by spending $15 billion each year. to spend $400d million on covering the summer. allen, washington state. democratic line. caller: i am kind of concerned, you are saying government is paying for this, it is not the government, it is the taxpayer. i agree that we should. afford to give doughnuts and coffee to the senators and congressmen, i think we should be able to feed the kids. there is no reason the taxpayers should pay for their donuts and all that crap.
7:46 am
i think they make enough money. i think they should fire the whole bunch of them. i do not think they are doing their job. twitter message -- host: danielle, independent line. caller: i agree with one of the previous callers, it is disturbing that we even have to have this conversation. second, we can do a lot better than criminals. criminals provide for themselves. it is sad that we are getting to this point. the other thing i want to say is, without pushing anything on anybody, this is one of the main reasons we are in the mess that we are.
7:47 am
says we need to wake up and get with the program or it will get worse. thank you. host: you can find the watch -- "the washington post" story that we have been talking about this morning on their website, next we will take a look at a robot -- rollback. big businesses were going to face penalties next year if they did not give health insurance coverage, postponed by one year. elizabeth rose and salt will join us to talk about her reporting on childbirth. first, a look at what is coming up on the sunday shows on c-span radio. shows, theunday talk latest on edward snowden, egypt,
7:48 am
and immigration reform. c-span radio rears the programs beginning at noon. today's guests on "meet the raul " bob menendez, and labrador. at 1:00 p.m., "this week," with former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush. also, the egyptian ambassador to the u.s.. jack00 p.m., bob corker, reed, and rick perry. p.m., "state of the union," with martin dempsey and congressman mike rogers. ," 4:00 p.m. "face the nation with john mccain, javier becera, and mike mccall.
7:49 am
the sunday morning talk shows are brought to you as a service by the network and c-span. the shows are rebroadcast at noon eastern. you can listen to them all on c- span radio, 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. radio area. you can download our free at 4 you're smart phone or listen online at [video clip] make a difference? we come down on the side that it did.
7:50 am
which and the senator likes to hear. they actually had to go out and deal with the people. as opposed to having a state legislature, all you would need is 14 votes the chickadees and we pay off. in some cases they did pay off 14 senators. to buy the election. >> more with the historian emeritus of the senate, richard baker, tonight at 8:00 on a "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. servesarilyn serafini as communications director and health policy adviser at the american medical association. businesses get a break before the health mandate. the obama administration,
7:51 am
rolling back part of their enforcement plan for the federal health care law. what was supposed to happen in 2014? what has been changed? guest: we still have the situation for most individuals will be required to purchase whorance, but employers, were also supposed to have a requirement beginning then as well, they will no longer be required to have that mandate on january 1. lawyers were supposed to, on january 1, here again we are talking about employers over 50. for was not a requirement smaller employers, it was a requirement for larger employers, offering their employees some kind of coverage with a minimum set of benefits
7:52 am
or pay a penalty. somewhere between 2000 and $3,000 per worker after the first 30 years. talking about $2,000 to $3,000 per worker. you mention that people generally still need to have insurance in 2014, that has not changed? guest: correct. host: but the element has changed. why did the obama administration will this back? guest: there were a couple of blog posts that came out from the administration last week, explaining why they had done this. we have been hearing a lot from the business community that the burden of reporting was going to be too great.
7:53 am
that they were going to have to report. have tod -- we will tell you which employees have insurance, which ones were dependent, how many months of , too complex,hich we need more time, you need to simplify the process for us. we want you to work with us to do that, we simply need more time to do this and do it right. host: if this is a major part of the health care law, is this a significant setback? guest: it depends on who you talk to. most people would say that this is not. if you look at who is already offering insurance in the business community, if you look at who the mandate is going to apply to, january 1, 2014 or
7:54 am
2015, we are talking about employers with more than 50 employees. of that group, 96% of employers already offer insurance. , the even larger employers, we are talking about a 98% of employers over 200 employees already offering that kind of coverage. most of them already offer coverage with fairly good benefits. it does not affect them in any great way. host: let's look at those numbers of employers who already offer health benefits to their employees. small businesses at the bottom of the screen, three workers to nine workers, only half allow the benefits. as you get into the larger
7:55 am
companies, 50 to 199 employees, 90% of those businesses offer benefits. those with over 200 workers, 98% offered those benefits. host: exactly, the smaller employers were never want to have this on them to begin with. also, many, many large businesses were not going to have this requirement on them either. self-insured businesses, they toll use insurers administer health plans. but they actually pay out the benefits themselves directly. host: if you would like to join the conversation and join marilyn serafini, here are the numbers to call. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for independents, 202-585-3882.
7:56 am
is the communications director and health policy director at the alliance for health reform. guest: the alliance is a non- profit, non-partisan organization. the mission is simply education. we educate members of congress, congressional staff, and the media. that is our primary function. host: let's look at the concerns are around these employers that do not yet provide insurance to their employees. what were some of the fears in terms of companies changing their workforce to avoid getting this? guest of this has been in the news lately, anecdotes and fears that companies would change their workforce around a little bit to avoid these requirements. to full-rements apply time employees. what qualifies as full time?
7:57 am
30 hours per week or more for this process. there were concerns and anecdotes that employers would draw back on the hours of some employees to avoid that requirement. is that going to happen? we do not know yet. it could, potentially. we just do not know yet. some employers are saying that it could potentially happen and some who fear this are saying that it could potentially happened. there are some anecdotes, but that is all there are at this point. host: what about this decision to put on pause part of the health care law? how do they let people know? guest: through web posts. which is not surprising, that they would do it in a relatively quiet way.
7:58 am
the announcement is somewhat surprising. the administration does not necessarily want to make a big deal about this. not necessarily in their interest to delay big portions of this law. they do not want to. they want to move forward. they have always move forward with the idea that if they can put this in place, people will see it is a good law and people will buy into it and they will see the benefits of a lot and it will become very popular. they will not want to delay it. however, it does not benefit the onlytration to have the stakeholder, including the business community, being critical or having a major
7:59 am
problem with this law. them.ow, criticizing and it of hearing that the administration is now working with them. so far, the administration comes back and says, quietly of course -- they will not make this huge announcement. they do not want to make a big deal of this. they would prefer to come back wiley and say that the -- that we will work with you -- come back quietly and say that we will work with you to make sure it is done right, to make sure you can do this right. host: let's go to the phones and our callers. j., and orleans. caller: how're you doing? host: good. lady speakinge shared exactly what i wanted to talk about. the reason the government is rolling his back is because three months after the law was
8:00 am
passed, employers said they were going to go to part-time workers. so, if they are not going to pay it, it will put a damper on the economy. so, why would they not roll it back one year so that they do not look like idiots and make the economy worse? that is my thought on why they're doing this. they have to make the administration look better. economy is not going to do well if they force these people into doing this. they will just go to part-time workers. if you work 40 hours per week, they will hire two people for 20 hours per week. they will have the same coverage in their company. host: let's get a response from marilyn serafini. guest: there is one school of thought that says -- frankly,
8:01 am
employers have always complained about the high cost of health care. employers have been in the business of health care for decades. they have always complained about the high cost of health care. in recent years they have dealt with the high cost of health care by putting more of the cost on to employees. employees have seen more of their premiums rise and seen higher deductibles. what we have seen in recent is employees -- getting back to this, what we really to answer i am trying what the caller was asking. host: many have already started to cut back on their workforce. , saying that they can get by
8:02 am
with part-timers. guest: there are two schools of thought. one, employers have always complained about the high cost of health care. one, they would potentially cut back on their coverage of health care. they could go to part-time workers to avoid coverage. they could contact employers to avoid this coverage. we have to remember that having employer coverage is an attractive benefit for employers to offer in the workforce. employers have always seen it this way. it is really why the offer coverage at the rates they do. over -- offerrs
8:03 am
workers coverage. that is a high percentage. host: this from twitter -- host: what has the response been a business and industry to this news? them call thisw a sigh of relief. guest: that is exactly what the response has been. the business community responded with thanks and gratitude, that they were very happy that this was going to be the case and that they needed this extra year. delay was about reporting requirements. foradded benefits businesses was not having to pay the penalty.
8:04 am
technically it was about reporting requirements. they do not have to pay the penalty. every statement you have seen in every press report was about gratitude for having this simplification from the administration working. ill., independent line. caller: thank you very much. it is my opinion that this should be part of the government's job. to put it on businesses is will we have done. we might as well set this as a minimum wage. i do not think it is a good idea, because the businesses
8:05 am
should be the ones taking care of it. if we will put that on the businesses, make that a part of our wages. care my mother, who is elderly. even with medicare and social security, she has to come up with $14,000 somewhere. gosh knows where. obviously, she does not have it. thatems unreasonable to me we expect these businesses to take care of it. you quit your job to help care for a family member. do you have health insurance? guest: no.
8:06 am
host: are you making plans to get any? guest: i will tell you what. i will be pretty much up the river when they tell me i have to. because i cannot afford it. host: we will touch on that in a moment. let's go to marilyn serafini with more from your call. maybe we can go to both parts? guest: again, it is important to remember that there are many people who agree with you. in particular, many republicans did not support this employer requirement. they did not believe in principle that it was a good idea to require employers to offer coverage to their employees. then again, if you look at how many employers are already offering this kind of coverage, almost all employers are already
8:07 am
offering this kind of coverage to their employees. not only are they already offering this kind of coverage, they are already offering very good coverage with good benefits. powers watson did a study very recently where they compared the kind of coverage and kind of benefits that employers are offering already. we're talking about large employers, here. they compare that coverage to what is going to be available to individuals who purchase coverage on the exchanges. individuals who purchase coverage in the state exchanges began and january 1, there will be four levels of plans. bronze, silver, gold, platinum. bronze is the lowest level. and the vast it majority of employer plans were in the higher range of benefit
8:08 am
coverage. already employers without todate are already choosing do this. while there are many people and do not agreeblican -- republicans do not agree in principle that no one should be required to do this but many businesses are already choosing to in a significant way. host: he talked about not planning to get insurance, so let's take a look at the penalties that will kick in. in 2014 if you do not have health insurance, it is a $95 enalty, increasing in 2013 -- 2015. 2% of taxable income, going up to 2.5% in 2016. is notler said that he anticipating actually getting
8:09 am
insurance. update us on where things are at in terms of the options for insurance. guest: the administration -- this is why this announcement was a relatively big surprise this week. the administration was really just on and to become engaged in and getting the word out, starting to spread the word and telling people what is coming, starting to get the word out. ,eyond the it ministration everyone keeps talking about 2014 and coverage beginning, but open enrollment begins october 1. open enrollment begins on october 1, we are already starting to see in a few states premiums coming out. we are starting to see information trickling out in a few states about what health
8:10 am
plans are going to look like. we are getting some information and we expect over the next couple of months that we are going to see information starting to trickle out in those states. we will start to get an idea of what his point to happen. there has been a little bit of talk about whether we will see something called write shock. this could potentially be a big deal if we do see a rate shock. what we are talking about here is -- are we going to see premiums through the roof? so that people scream and this becomes a big political deal? the idea here is that with a lot of people that have to buy insurance or are going to buy ,nsurance in individual market you are going to have younger people whose premiums are going to be a little higher than they
8:11 am
were before. some of the older people, their premiums are growing to be lower than they were before. that is by design. for thethe premiums older people more affordable than they were before to people with greater health care costs, to make it a little more affordable they created something of a rate band. so that they could do that, they had to bring the rates up a little bit for the younger people. the question is -- for those younger people, how much more expensive is it going to be? so expensive that they are going to scream and yell? seeing thosetart rates, is it going to be a big deal? what we see from the first few is not so huge. but we have only seen from a few
8:12 am
states. the jury is really still out on that. host show headline from today's "the washington post." -- host: headline from today's "the washington post." host: let's hear from paul in tennessee on the republican line. caller: good morning to c-span. thank you for doing this. this is quite ironic to me, because i think the very idea here is to impose before the very eyes. this thing of getting together people to pay a premium so that older people can get a lower premium, it is not going to work. people are going to pay that $95 fine, go their way, and forget this president trashing it. just throwing it in the trash. give me one more second.
8:13 am
this president and this administration has just trashed the constitution. how are they going to get younger people to work, much less pay a fine on their taxes? they are not going to do that. why in the world would they think that this could work? i can hear nancy pelosi saying that we have got to pass the bill and we see what is in it. these younger people are not going to buy high-cost premium health insurance they do not need. guest: many people agree with you, we call them the young invincible. people who think they do not need insurance. $95 is not much to pay when you look at the price of insurance. but that is the first year. maybe not everyone will in the first year. maybe some people, we do not know how many will choose to pay
8:14 am
the penalty in the first year, but in the second year it goes up. that is a lot different. that, $695 is a lot different than $95. we will have to see whether people are willing to pay a $695 penalty. is what gene host: looking at these exchanges, any thoughts on the battle going on to this day? guest on medicare for all? that is a battle that, really,
8:15 am
even the staunchest democrats really are not fighting anymore. even the ones who most believe in medicare for all are not fighting that fight anymore. they might still introduce the legislation, but they understand that it is not politically viable. that they cannot make that happen. so, really, even they are not doing this. some people believe that this law will eventually turn into a youle payer system, but know, time will tell. that is a political discussion. host: another tweet to -- host: how can the white house decide to postpone the rollout? guest: others are asking the
8:16 am
same question. they are saying there could be a discussion about that. we do not know, it is still so recent. we do not know if there could be any serious discussion about their authority to do this. was they did not say -- employers did not have to pay the penalty exactly. exactly do it in that way. they said -- employers, you do not have to report of which of your employees have coverage over these months and which of the dependents have coverage over these months. so, since you do not have to do the reporting, we cannot then pay the penalties. it just fits together and does not work. alreadyome people have raised the question -- do they really have the authority to do this? whether it will go further than
8:17 am
a few people raising a question, that we do not know. host: dan, democratic line. caller: you can tell by most of the people's comments that they probably got their information from fox news, they do not understand the law. maybe she could explain to duele what kind of an come individuals have to make to buy their own insurance and what help they can get in buying it? do we really think that pop the johns cannot afford to help their employees get insurance? this is crazy, they just do not understand the law. host: let's get a response. guest: talking about individuals and employees here, first of all four individuals were buying insurance on the exchange, individuals earning between 100%
8:18 am
of the federal poverty level and 400% of the federal poverty level, here we are talking about 11,000 annual income. talking about individuals here, about 46,000 for an individual. those people will get some kind of a federal sliding scale subsidy. an individual earning about $11,000 is going to get a pretty full subsidy of almost everything to get this insurance. if you are at the higher end of the income scale, you are going to get a lot less. who isare an employee now, because of this decision last week, you are now not going to get insurance through your , you are still going to
8:19 am
need to buy insurance. you may need to get it through the exchange. you may qualify for some federal subsidies if you meet those income requirements. goingh, your employer is to be paying a penalty. the employer penalty for not providing insurance is $2,000 to $3,000. of course, they will not be paying it in the first year. that will be beyond the first year. but the employee will still be getting a federal subsidy in the exchange. this is going to get complicated. because the employee, who did not get coverage through the employer -- remember, we're not
8:20 am
talking about a lot here. most employers are already offering coverage. the for the small group of employees who are not going to get coverage to their employer and are now going to move to the exchange, for that subset of lower income people who will qualify for federal subsidies, that is going to cost the federal government money that they were not counting on spending. , ofbecause of this ruling this decision from the obama administration, the federal government could end up spending more money let -- next year than they had intended on spending. in addition, the government will not be taking in any penalties from employers that they had
8:21 am
anticipated on taking in. penalties hador been about $5 billion for 2014. so, that will also have an impact on federal revenues. host: marilyn serafini is here from the alliance on health reform and we are looking at the decision from the white house to delay the requirement from large employers to provide their workers with health insurance starting in 2014. let's go to dawn in port charlotte, florida. good morning. onler: i wanted to comment this 98% number. i live in the south and work for a fortune 500 company brochure chain. all theirstently keep employees, probably one out of
8:22 am
30 get health coverage. i am wondering if those numbers, are they counted as someone who gives health care insurance while consistently keeping their hours below minimum to get the benefit? are the numbers counted that way? host: before we let you go, do you have health insurance? through your employer? guest: no, i am always under the hour minimum to get the benefit. everybody knows that you cannot get health insurance in this town with any of the companies. i do not understand where she is getting that number. host: you do not health insurance at all? guest: no, i am ill and -- caller: no, i am ill and need it. meant if i said 98%, i 96%. even so, it is a pretty big number.
8:23 am
the percentage is the percentage of employers offering health coverage. your employer probably is counted as one of the employers who offer health coverage. it is just not offering coverage to you and some of the employees at your company. toy employers offer coverage .he full time employees that could mean a number of the employees in management are full time. if it is a grocery chain, i do not know, maybe it means all the stock people are working less than 30 hours per week? it might mean that some of the cashier's are -- i do not know. some might be full time, some might be less.
8:24 am
works, ife breakdown some employees are full time and , then thatrt-time employer is counted as an employer offering health coverage. host: here are the numbers again. this is from the kaiser family foundation. we are looking at a summary of what companies offer their employees. you can see the numbers there from the kaiser family foundation. the break down there for the larger sized companies. david wright's on twitter -- host: we do not know the last callers says -- specific situation, but do you expect to
8:25 am
see changes from the big companies? who will they cover once this law kicks in? caller: earlier i -- guest: earlier i mentioned a study that recently came out. that study seemed to indicate that most employers met the minimum qualifications for coverage. employers are trying to need to meet this. most of them already far exceed that number. if employers do not meet a minimum set of benefits, then those employees who do not -- who are not going to be getting -- those employees who do not either have access to an employer plan, or do not have access to a minimum set of benefits -- if the employer is falling short, then those employees cannot qualify for
8:26 am
coverage as individuals in an exchange. they can go to the individual exchange. if they qualify, based on their income for subsidies, they can go ahead and get subsidies. wyandotte, hear from okla., republican caller, rudy. ruby.: hello, this is host: excuse me. go ahead. caller: if you cannot get a job and are trying to find a job, how are you going to get insurance to find the job? if they work and have insurance that to which her family on, it costs so much of the two cannot afford it, what are you supposed to do? guest: one more minor provision employer doesour
8:27 am
offer coverage but the coverage is poor, your fortune is still on affordable. that is defined as the premium itself, 9.5% of your family income. -- you cancan tell go into the individual exchange and will likely qualify for subsidies. again, you know, if you are talking about on affordability if you dordability, not have any kind of coverage and are looking for work you are still required to have insurance. are unemployed, you may qualify for medicaid. you may qualify for full individualn the market in your states exchange.
8:28 am
state's exchange. there are possibilities. host: let's look at some details about what kicks in when. october 1, opened in rome and starts for health insurance exchanges. january 1, next year, the exchange's actually began. 17 states are doing them themselves. 27 states are letting the federal government run them. seven are doing partnerships. take a step back and define what this marketplace is. like athink about it choice of health plans. if you were to go on to a web site and it had a list of health plans you could choose from, you could go on and compare different health plans that were available to you.
8:29 am
you could qualify for all of them. you could not be denied for any of them. you would be able to truly compare them, apples to apples. none of us have seen of what the exchange is going to look like. every exchange is going to look a little different. what they are supposed to do is you should be able to get on to this exchange. it could be a website. there are different avenues for comparison. you may get some help from the community center, through your church, through all kinds of different community services. through navigators, and sisters. these are different community efforts -- assistors. these are different community efforts to help you navigate the marketplace. but that is what it is, a
8:30 am
marketplace so that you can compare the health options available to you. deniedwe will not be anything. it will help you assess or whety for federal subsidies to help you to purchase these insurance products. it is all supposed to be very easy. .e will see how it works it is all supposed to become available october 1. as you said, most of these exchanges are going to be run by the federal government. some of the moby run by individual states, and some of them will be a hybrid, partnerships run by both the state and the federal government. hear from sharon in dallas, texas. last call on democrats line. my daughter has insurance through a company that i have insurance. but in texas, you cannot purchase a child entrance, -- a
8:31 am
child's insurance. can you go through the health exchange to find a child's insurance? we have this cricket governor named rick perry, and he will not allow that, so that is what i am trying to figure out, and my able to be a will to do that? currently under the health law, you should be able to put your child, have your child on your health plan. if your child, and i do not know what the age of your child is, but it if your child is under the age of 26, you should be able to have your child on your health clan -- health plan. once the individual exchange is open, you should be able to get individual coverage for your child in an exchange. you also should have a specific program for your child in a texas called chip.
8:32 am
it may have a specific name that is not exactly chip. chip if the federal name. so it may have an individual name in texas. it maybe part of the medicaid program. of course that is a slightly lower income program. he may or may not qualify for that. of the exchange or the marketplace, you will definitely be able to buy coverage for your child. ,ost: marilyn werber serafini jamaica nations rector and health policy adviser for the alliance for health reform. thank you so much. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up next to my lives with rosenthal of that -- coming up next, elisabeth rosenthal of the "new york times." later on, we will look at the situation with egypt. our guest, eric trager, just returned from cairo, and he will give us a sense of what is happening on the ground.
8:33 am
american history tv continues its tour of american cities. it will feature bakersfield, california. all weekend long, we are looking at the history of this city, located about 80 miles north of los angeles. coming up@55:00 p.m. this evening on c-span3, we will show all of our history related programming we have gathered there, including a look at the current river oil fields and importance to the state and the hundred. the county where bakersfield is located is the largest oil- producing county in the united states. >> we're standing on the bluff. it overlooks the oilfield, which is one of the largest oil field in the state of california. if the county were a state, it would be in the top five oil producers in the nation. to put this in a little more context, 75% of all oil
8:34 am
production in california is done in kern county, and over 50% of the natural gas is produced in california is right here in kern county. the people of current court -- kern county new this oil is here. the indians had been using oil glue and their bath six -- in their baskets. what they ended up doing first forpeople started mining oil just what they would mind for oil. they started -- just like they would mind for gold. they started making kerosene. that was as late as the 1850's, early 1860's. soil bloomng that in kern county, may 1899, the banks of the kern river on thomas means' property.
8:35 am
they ended up drilling several feet. no one really believe that the time. a man who wrote for the "daily " wrote that there was actually oil out here. within two months, there were 200 oil companies drilling for oil out in this field ecb honey. >> you can turn in -- tune into 3'span three -- c-span program later today. and check out our travels and videos from other cities, visit us online, go to /localconent. /localcontent.
8:36 am
now joining us elisabeth rosenthal, looking at american health care system and its expenses. this past week, american way of birth, the costliest in the world. a look at childbirth and its expense. thank you so much for joining us, elisabeth rosenthal. guest: thank you for having me here. host: why did the "new york times" have truven health analytics look at the cost of giving birth in america? what value going on this topic? guest: a group called truven analytics to the report of commission by three healthcare groups this year to look at the changes in childbirth costs. the numbers were really eye- popping to me. i wanted to know a little bit more about how that had changed over time because i think we have all seen health care cost escalates. we really wanted to find why is this happening. ?ost: why look at birth ech
8:37 am
you talk about how this is one of the most fundamental things that women, families, go through an experience, so why look at this in particular? guest: when i initially laid out this series, i was not going to include childbirth. it had not even include -- occurred to me. when we sorted talking about at the time, i found out that i older colleagues were energized by things like hip replacements and colonoscopies, but my younger colleagues were all complaining about how expensive childbirth had become. these are people with insurance, so then when i started asking around, i discovered that there were many people whose insurance is not even cover them for childbirth anymore. oneink to me, childbirth is of those kind of iconic moments. it is a healthcare intervention, but it is the one that perpetuates our country and our s, so if insurance is not covering that, that is not a good sign. host: the "new york times" look
8:38 am
at the average 2012 amount paid by country by rate. , 9700cial delivery dollars. cesarean birth, over $15,000. that is usually above other developed nations. price cap?e ga guest: that number for the u.s. actually lays out a number of things because that probably would not include the anesthesiologist see, a radiologist fee for scan, and that talks to why it is so expensive because most countries consider childbirth a kind of , it is very hard to childbirth without a scan. we tend to what we call on the bundle. unbundle. we charge for every little piece as if you are going through a supermarket and have celery and roast beef for dinner tonight.
8:39 am
we charge item by item by item, and the costs really add up. that is one of the reasons. another reason is that hospital excesses tend to be more. our doctors fees tend to be more. in partre tests because people make money from everything we do. at other countries in the extensive tolbert, you can see switzerland at $4000 compared to america, over $9,000. france, $3500. even a cesarean session coming in significantly lower. lessese countries offer high-quality care than the united states? how does he care for a mother and child differ for those countries in the u.s., or does it? guest: there are some differences, but i should point out that in response to our article, we got a number of comments from people who said i was living in switzerland or in france or in denmark, and it
8:40 am
was heaven to have a child there. and the neck and back to the u.s. and had a child, and it was -- you know, the services are fine. like the bills when they compared i think that is the big difference is. some of point out that these countries have an national health system, others have fees for service medicines like ours, they just cost it differently. so i do not think there is any differences to the kind of services. we tend to do more of things that cost more. like cesarean sessions -- sections. we might say, get in overs -- ultrasound every week or try sweet for the last trimester. a week for the last trimester. that may be appropriate in some cases. but they also do the things that patients who do not need it. we also do not use midwifery much compared to other countries. writeslisabeth rosenthal
8:41 am
in her recent "new york times" story -- studies show that their citizens do not have less access to care or to high-tech care during pregnancy than americans. she also writes that payments and incentives for providers mean that american women with normal pregnancies tend to get more of everything, necessary or not, from blood tests to ultrasound scans. and then finally, they financially suffer the consequence. elisabeth rosenthal, tell us about some of the families that you talked to as they prepared babies.abies -- to have were they able to keep track of very sensitive than what the bill would ultimately be ech? guest: the telling thing for me was the main family i focus on, a young couple, renée martin and , inhusband, mark willits new hampshire. they're the most responsible kids i have met in a long time.
8:42 am
. they tried to do everything right. when they wanted to get two youngthese are adults who have always had health insurance. they tried to get health insurance for their pregnancy, but discovered, and this is a catch i did not even know about, and many states at this moment in time, you have to buy a yourancy rider if you or health insurance to cover pregnancy. and what that means, and their case, they researched it, they discovered that to get covered for pregnancy, they would have to pay $800 a month -- a month -- to have coverage for pregnancy, and the catch-22 is that they would have to buy the coverage before they got pregnant, right, so you could $15,000 a year to have coverage for pregnancy, not knowing if you are going to get pregnant. so where they were in life, they decided to just get regular insurance.
8:43 am
got got pregnant when they pregnant. they were not particularly trying. and then they had to approach it as a shopping trip. so they went to the hospital and said what is this going to cost us. at first the hospital said we don't know, and the next response that i was oh, between $4000 and 45,000 dollars. these are young professionals trying to be response will and plan out their finances, and you had a next event like that for a nar -- and if you got a estimate like that for a car or kitchen remodel, you could not go forward. host: elisabeth rosenthal has a -- a doctorree from degree, she studied history and biology at stanford. she has been with the "new york times" since 1993. she is working on a year-long series right now looking at hair -- health care costs and the united states. if you'd like to join the conversation, we have socialized if you're injured,
8:44 am
you can call it that (202) 585- 3880. if you are uninsured, call us at (202) 585-3881. and if you are a healthcare provider, you can call it that (202) 585-3882. -- you can call us at (202) 585- 3882. what is a difference between those who have insurance and those who do not have insurance? guest: in terms of their birth experience, they both will suffer financially. people who don't have insurance have to start from square one and see if they're qualified for medicaid or a state program, which might subsidize insurance, or look for a hospital because of some do now offer a package rates. but you have to be really careful to ask what is included in that package because there are often additional fees. people who have insurance are often blindsided because they think oh, well as many of my colleagues at the "new york i have insurance,
8:45 am
this will cover me. and then the whole pregnancy, or at the very end of pregnancy, they are hit with bills in the $4000 to $6,000 range. it is a lot of money. this can really add up. especially if you're in one of the high-cost urban areas for medical care. host: lego to the phone my tenure from nick in, maryland. comment on our insured line. caller: good morning. my understanding is the cost of medical care in the u.s. is also related to cost shifting based upon those who do have insurance having to pay an additional premium, an additional amount, to cover the cost of those who do not have insurance. and therefore is a person is in a situation where they do not have insurance, or the insurance is not going to cover the particular received your,
8:46 am
then the rate that such a patient is charged is the .nflated rate that sounds terribly unfair to me. guest: yes, i think often the uninsured face the highest rates because they face the rack rates. there's also also this issue of cost shifting him a but i don't, and i know it is often given as a reason for why our rates are so high, but i would point out that even our medicaid rates for pregnancy are much higher than those in other countries eared so i don't think cost shifting really explains the very high rates of pregnancy. there aren't a lot of uncompensated deliveries going on now. poor people who can't afford delivery tends to be eligible for medicaid or some of the low income assistance programs for pregnancy.
8:47 am
the people with more means, in the series,in she basically will try very hard to pay those bills. host: columbus, ohio, gerald is uninsured. go ahead. caller: i'm calling in to make a comment. because of insurance. -- the cost of insurance or the -- ironyedical period came to the same conclusion that they can do at the end of the article. it costs so much because they charge whatever they want. what it is costing to have it done is how much they want to charge. they have no morality when it comes to that. yes, i think we price medical care the way we have priced almost any other good. how much does it cost to make a smart phone?
8:48 am
certainly not $400, $500. you can sell a smart phone for $400 because that is what people are willing to pay, and that is what happens american -- happens in medical, too. hospital pay is getting x amount of money, we will get that too. would like to say that our healthcare is market driven, but it is not a functional market. there is not a vision, as the "time" magazine article pointed out. how hospitals charge would they want. that is what we find out again and again in this series. patients do not know the right they're paying. the doctors do not know the price the delivery costs. so how can you choose wisely? host: elisabeth rosenthal wrote a piece for the "new york times" last month, it looks
8:49 am
specifically at colonoscopies, the cost differences based on region and hospitals. you can also see other procedures and how much they cost and he united states. the average u.s. price appear, and the average price in other countries, things like a hip for placement cosan and -- on average 40,000 dollars in the u.s., they cost $7,700 in spain. $124 in lipitor costs the u.s. and six dollars in new zealand. let's go to a healthcare provider in washington, d .c. caller: as i've been driving home, i would just like to comment on some of the issues on bundling or unbundling, i should say. you have to be clear of how we have been compensated when they look at the entire fee. we have been set on global fees delivery and postpartum
8:50 am
for quite a wild. so i think there is a misperception out there that somehow at least the obstetrician or the physician is being compensated for ordering extra test or for doing a cesarean section versus a vaginal delivery. the process has always been one great bundle. so i think we are on the forefront of what a lot of other other specialists are probably going to be headed at. i think talking about the cost of delivery between, i think you to $45,000ge of 4000 feared a small part of that is the obstetrician, which has been controlled for a long while. it is all of the other components are those are my comments. yes, i think the obstetrician's have been on the forefront of bundle fees when you look the total fee for pregnancy. the obstetricians charge have come at about a quarter or less,
8:51 am
and obstetricians have often -- their fees is not escalated the way the hospital fees and all the ancillary fees have increased. they do, in that sense, provide a model for what could be done for other doctors. i have to say obstetricians work incredibly hard. they are up all night. are not the big money doctors in our society. that is absolutely true. it is really the system that is the problem, and the way we do things that leads to these high prices. host: the "new york times" shows the cost of the childbirth in the u.s., the average charge for medical care serenity birth of a child totaled more than $37,000 according to a study by truven health analytics. the charge is given here are the building charges. you can be broken down. ray neidl care, everything from radiology fees to pharmacy fees to lab fees, over $6,000.
8:52 am
you see the delivery section, over $18,000. at that hour -- as our caller pointed out, doctors over 30t $0 feared he see the cost for postpartum care, also the care given to newborns. any of these numbers really stand out to you, elisabeth rosenthal, as surprising? guest: the hospital care certainly stands out to me. we have a very medicalized form of birth. which i think speaks to the fact that we don't allow midwives to be very purpose of the tory -- very participatory. i am not saying that midwives are the answer for everything. some people cannot use midwives. one of the craziest things i learned in doing this story is that we -- many insurance policies, specifically don't allow midwives. so the woman wants to choose
8:53 am
the cheaper option, and if she is medically qualified and say to that, her insurance won't pay for it. that is not. -- nuts. host: john is insured. caller: good morning, ladies. thank you for this interesting topic. i am active duty military, and i am enrolled under tri-care. that is really at home as opposed to comparing healthcare cost and to europe, but we have actually a domestic, socialized healthcare system, which treats a considerable amount of folks. i have not heard any numbers comparing the cost of childcare, and what is the cost to give a birth at walter reed hospital, for example, to a spouse or to a ember compared to what cuts in the private sector at a civilian hospital? have you done any research to compare and contrast those two numbers? guest: i'm afraid i have not,
8:54 am
but i'm going to now. that is a fascinating question because obviously if they can be done for a lot cheaper there, that suggests it could be on the outside. and it provides a model. wether part of the reason pay so much for commercial -- four birth at right at hospitals , isity state hospitals that there is no system. every birth is negotiated one by one by one, whereas in a system like the military is using, you have a lot of our giving power, you have a lot of control over the entire system to control costs. so we are doing things one of the least efficient ways possible. i will look at this when i get to work two-week -- work this week. host: a lot of your reporting have looked at how procedure in denver can cost a different
8:55 am
amount than a procedure in new york city. do see big you regional variations across the u.s. all of our numbers are higher than all of the numbers pretty much in any of the european countries. so i think we have to remember even the places that we think of as cheap would be hugely expensive compared to other countries. but there is a lot of regional variation with respect to childbirth. i was somewhat chagrined to see that new york stands out like a sore thumb as being much higher than the rest of the country. it is not always the places that you would predict that are high cost. ,ome larger cities that have probably in some cases more managed care, have relatively low cost. i think los angeles and san francisco were not particularly high in the childbirth. so there is a lot of regional
8:56 am
variations. it is very hard for consumers who are trying to be smart about this to know what is a reasonable cost in my city. reasonableiously a cost for everything in new york city is going to be higher than a reasonable cost for everything in a small town someplace far away. host: elisabeth rosenthal, correspondent for the "new york times," here is our first input from a female viewer. jen writes on twitter -- how much do necessary tests and malpractice insurance factor into these costs? me do the second part of the question first. i think malpractice is a big issue for obstetricians. they pay sometimes a couple hundred thousand dollars a year for malpractice. so it is a part of the problem, but the more i spoke to people, the more i thought it was not a huge part of the problem. sike i said, the obstetrician
8:57 am
work for you hard. they have a very demanding job. they trained for years. and their fees are not the big part of the problem. so, yes, malpractice is there, but it is really not the issue. in terms of the necessary testing, what you see is we do the necessary tests as other countries do the necessary tests, but we take those tests and do them more and more and more. i think there is a kind of sense with the way insurance in our not justorks that why get to scans a week, we will see how baby baby is, we will get a sense at have -- of how things are going. we have the sense that if you are insured, no one is paying, but of course we are all paying. there is no harm, but there is. ,ost: cornelius, north carolina
8:58 am
jeff is insured. go ahead, jeff. caller: my wife and i, this is e we are because m pregnant right now. it will be in mid-january. something that has not been discussed, and i've been doing all of the the father reading, having a good time, but our -- postpartum, we are going to be paying a lot this year. 1231, we get to roll it over and it would all again next year. we will max out of pocket this year for all of the pre-stuff, we will have the baby next her, and guess what, we'll will get to pay it out of pocket again. we talk about primacy as one medical for seizure or one issue, but it looks like some people, just because of the timing of it, and of paying twice. a thought to have come i really appreciate that. thank you. let youff, before we know -- i think we just lost 10. darn.
8:59 am
i was going to get a sense of how much it was costing. go-ahead and answer his question for us, elisabeth. guest: there are many blind fields people have to cross with any medical procedure in this country. i did hear the same thing from several other patients. i hate to call pregnant women patients, but people interacting with the medical system, where they reach their out-of-pocket max and one year, but of course primacy is nine months. they go into the next year, and the insurance who tend to view things is very black and white, and this is our policy, co-pays and the dockable's reset to january 1 so you are out of luck. i think that is not rational. that is not what anyone in a sensible world would want. the other thing i heard from people, and i don't know if the caller is expressing this, as they put money aside in a healthcare spending account, so
9:00 am
-- they could use tax-free money to pay for their childbirth, but then the bills took a year and a half, so they cannot use the money they set aside to pay for the childbirth. so there are a hundred different kinds of loopholes. it is very hard. when you are pregnant, you are obviously very anxious about your child and your pregnancy, and so to have to keep track of all those financial writeslisabeth rosenthal about one couple in particular, picture there. not know ifey did their pregnancy would fall in the $4000 or $40,000 end of the range. the couple had a hard time budgeting their finances or imagining their future. john is a physician. caller: hello.
9:01 am
i'm a family practitioner in the rural part of indiana. we have a lot of poor people there and a lot of unmarried people there. there was a gentleman in the earlier section who said that parents have to do what they have to do. out that an point abortion is a lot cheaper than delivering a baby. sometimes that's what they do. host: do you have -- do you help patients through giving birth? [no audio] i do not anymore. it's too complicated. you have two lives in your hands. modern obstetrics is very different than it was in the 1970's when i graduated.
9:02 am
guest: part of what this physician is telling us is that we really need a plan to make sure that pregnancies are covered and covered well. one of the most disturbing things i've heard from people -- these are people who are talking about first children. i got pregnant, and i'm worried i won't be able to afford the delivery. society isasure of a how it tends to this vital life moment. we're not doing a very good job vis-à-vis our citizens at the moment. arkansas, anthony joins us on our uninsured callers line. we continuously repeat
9:03 am
the problems of the situation, but it's like we don't understand where the problem lies. the insurance companies are making megabucks. they don't want to change the system. my question is, what might the and voter, what action can we take to change it other than going to the polls, trying to elect people who say they're going to look out for our interests but as soon as i get into an office, they forget who we are? and then they go to the insurance companies for campaigns. this is a good conversation. our children are suffering.
9:04 am
they're being born, then set to adoption. what can the average citizen like me expect in the near future? one of the reasons i was desperate to do this series is i really want this issue of health care to be a voting issue. part of people's frustration is that they open these bills in their living room, they think it is ridiculous, they set up a payment plan to deal with the charges, they may differ care that they cannot afford, but there is no box on a ballot that says, i want something different. that has allowed many politicians to ignore or put aside the issues. there is a mantra that we have the best medical system in the world, we're just trying to tweak the insurance.
9:05 am
people are much more dissatisfied than that. i'm hoping this series will set off a national conversation, that people will be asking their politicians and politicians will make it their issue. we got the first story on colonoscopy, 15,000 comments. the pregnancy story, likewise. expressing incredible anger and frustration. i hope there will be a way that people can vote on this issue in the future. host: elisabeth rosenthal's $2ory includes the two -- trillion medical bill. she writes --
9:06 am
it was a fictitious grandmother, but part of a discovery process to find out how much healthcare actually costs. we're looking at her most recent piece in this series of health way of birth the costliest in the world. thank you for having me on. i was listening to this entirely. i'm a manager at a facility. this discussion of ancillary nurses -- even your med tek in the library is a four-year degree holder and two years of technical school
9:07 am
afterwards. is it not just people who are pressing a button for some money. it is not just people who are pressing a button for money. we lost $6 million last year. we also wrote off $80 million in care. people who could not pay, all these people who you say are opening their bills -- they are not paying. dollars was written off, but we still have to pay .ur workers even if the mother is not from the u.s., we're trying to help them and ourselves, get them some kind of financial help. we get less than a third from medicaid. up 75% of the patients
9:08 am
who walk through our door. 25% of those people have insurance. 75% of them did not. we don't get to negotiate with medicaid. we have to pay whatever they tell us to pay. insurance, weave do raise costs to try to cover the losses from the other 75%. this is what you get when you have a fee-for-service healthcare. host: thank you. guest: there's a lot to talk about here, but i would agree that fee-for-service healthcare is our primary problem. we pay for things one by one by one. there are hospitals and health facilities that are doing a lot of indigent care that are losing because they have what is called a bad paramedics that --
9:09 am
bad pair mix. hand, there was a list published last week of the 200 best paid ceo's in the u.s. were from0% of them the healthcare industry. i'm sure not from this particular facility we were talking about. there really are the haves and the have-nots. have's will target those kinds of procedures and those kinds of patient populations where they know they will get the $90,000 reimbursement for the hip replacement rather than the medicaid hip replacement reimbursement. cardiologynal facilities make money. there's a lot of talk in about which units are profit centers and which are not. there are some health centers and hospitals out there that are
9:10 am
doing amazing work that are losing a lot of money because they are not doing the profit items and they don't have the profitable patient population. int: let's hear from anne colorado, insured. caller: i'm calling about a situation that was mentioned in the article on colonoscopy. with dermatology -- i had a small cancer thing removed from my face for about $350. three years later i had a similar thing removed for $5,000. the office that i went to no longer allow those supple procedures to be done by practitioner. .t had to be done by a surgeon it escalated in cost hugely. you mentioned about the competition factor. in articles i have read in
9:11 am
europe or other places in the , there may be compensation allowed between nonprofit insurance companies, but medical are designated by cooperation between medical insurance and whatever. thank you. sure if i not understood the second part of your question. host: it sounded like she was talking about how insurance or work withotiate the providers, the hospital centers or otherwise to come up with prices. the first part of the comment about the facilities fees is on target. country you pay in this depends a lot on where your procedure is done. if it is done in an office, in a surgery center, or hospital. many procedures could be done in
9:12 am
but ourhose locations, insurance system reimburses a lot more if it is done as surgery. it is easy to call everything surgery. that is what has happened. we trended towards the most expensive and most profitable way to do things, rather than .he necessary way little skin operations that could be done in a doctor's office, three years later they are done in a surgery center or hospital outpatient department. then the bills are higher by factor of 10. part of the problem is we have insurers negotiating on our behalf, but they're not negotiating for what's good for our health. for what's ining line with our plan, what gives
9:13 am
them profitable plan relationship with the employers. there are a lot of things we can do to change that, but we haven't done any of them yet. host: elisabeth rosenthal, one of the couples you profile in the story, renée martin, woman about to have a baby, said, i feel like i'm in a used car lot as she talked about paying for her care out of pocket. in a follow-up piece you did the week about midwives and response you have gotten, you point out that one woman who rode into you said that her insurer, united healthcare -- that hero you said insurer, united healthcare, refused to pay for her midwife delivery. she fought back and they relented. how much of this is negotiation? away: one thing i take
9:14 am
from the series is that people can negotiate. if you fight back, you might get a discount. and timeght back time again. sometimes she got a little bit of a discount and sometimes she did not. world. funny someone is saying to you, do you want an epidural? as you are in early labor. you're, well, how much does that cost? they give you a price if they can, which they probably can't, and you are saying, ok, i will pay 60% of that. that's not the kind of health care system i imagined when i went to medical school. host: how much may change under the affordable care act? you write that midwifery might be seen if early -- differently. birth centers, midwife care become medicare he -- mandatory under medicare.
9:15 am
what may change? guest: one important thing will change vis-à-vis pregnancy is that health insurance plans will not be able to excuse -- exxclu entirely as ait pre-existing condition as of next year. hand, i would say from talking to many people who , they have great insurance but are ending up with a lot of out-of-pocket costs. really important for us to think of a better way to rather than item by item. we need to say, this is a pregnancy package. think we want to be asking people in the delivery room, can you write me a check? and that is what we're doing now. used was analogy renée
9:16 am
a menu with no prices on it. host: last call for elisabeth rosenthal. neil is insured. caller: thank you for doing this. i have not heard is the word efficiency. if you look at the european model and you look at almost anywhere else in the world, we are more efficient than they are in every area. except healthcare. we have the most inefficient healthcare system perhaps in the history of the world. it just doesn't make sense. if you walk into a physician's office, emergency room or some other providing place and there are 20 people in the place and each one of those people have , they wouldblem
9:17 am
probably all be charged a different price. no one can tell pricing. can you imagine running any other business that way? it's insanity. some free- apply market, reasonable principles to health care, i believe we could cost.ically move the a third of the cost of health care now is administration. that's really important. there are a lot of ways to make this function more as a system. to of the callers suggested set pricing. this is what an mri scan costs. bit foru allow a little regional variation. then you take away 10 phone calls back-and-forth bargaining, approvals. there are lots of ways to make this function as a system.
9:18 am
we call it a healthcare system, but it isn't. it's more like a used car lot. host: elisabeth rosenthal, correspondent for the "new york way of birth,an costliest in the world. you can find this on the "new york times" website and follow up with her on twitter. thank you for joining us this morning. coming up next, a look at the situation in egypt. washington from the institute for near east policy just returned from cairo. today's sunday talk shows, egypt is one of the topics they will be discussing. also immigration reform and the latest on edward snowden and nsa leaks. c-span radio re-airs the program's beginning at noon eastern. leader, opposition
9:19 am
senator bob menendez, and rollup or door, member of the house judiciary committee -- raul labrador, member of the house judiciary committee. u.s.'s ambassador to the as well. fox news sunday rares on c-span airso with bob corker -- re- on c-span radio with bob corker. cnn's state of the union follows at three clock p.m. eastern. candy croley system with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey, also mike rogers. at 4:00 eastern, face the nation. bob schieffer talks with armed services committee member , andor john mccain homeland security chairman michael mccaul. the sunday network tv talk shows are brought to as a public service by the networks and c-
9:20 am
span. c-span radio rebroadcasts the shows beginning at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press." 1:00, this week. cnn state of the --on, and for clock eastern, for clock eastern, face the nation. you can listen across the nation on xm satellite radio. find us on channel 119. you can download our free app for your smart phone or listen online at c-span man needs a strong and honest partner more than the american president, sheltered and cocooned as he is and what harry truman called the great white prison. this is what i concluded after hundreds of interviews. those presidents with brave spouses willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to those presidents
9:21 am
have a distinct advantage. let me give you an example. had pat nexen been able to cut through her husband's paranoia, watergate might have been avoided. but pat had long since given up on husband by the time they reached the white house. they were leading virtually separate lives, as you will see in my portrayal the saddest of all presidential couples. i don't give my husband advice, pat was quoted as saying, because he doesn't need it. is there a man or woman alive who doesn't need advice from the person who knows him or her best? >> we continue our conversation on first ladies. president shall marriages, and how the first ladies have helped to shape american history. monday night at 9:00 eastern. is at the trager washington institute for near
9:22 am
east policy, where he is a fellow. you just returned from turkey and cairo. we want to get your perspective on what is happening in egypt. what do we know about who is in charge in egypt right now? chargethe key player in is the military. he was the military the responded to two factors and stepped in. the first was the reality that the state was crumbling. the past six months, mohamed morsi lost control of the country. the police were nonresponsive to him. fromd accepted autonomy the military. the other institutions were not responding to him or in most cases the muslim brothers he , because to run them by basically trying to almostdate power and exclusively appointed either muslim brothers or nonideological technocrats in some cases to these offices,
9:23 am
those appointments were met with resistance from within the institutions of government. had lost control of government, and the military did not want state failure. the second thing the military was responding to were these mass protests on june 30. you had a record number reported. some put the numbers at 14 million, 17 million. there's no way to verify these numbers. looking looking at the images, you had basically packed streets of people extending all the way from downtown cairo through some of the surrounding areas. the military saw a president who was unpopular, who had simply lost control of the country to the extent that he was a president in name only, that it decided to step in. illusionsuld have any about who is in power right now. the military has appointed a new president.
9:24 am
he is a judge. they're trying to put together a transition council. anything that he does to go against the military will be reined back in. host: when will we see a new election? guest: there will be elections, but they will not be free and fair. the military in trying to regain control of the country will probably run things pretty oppressively. we saw the way the military around the country during the 16 months after the fall of mubarak -- i don't expect anything lighter right now. what i would say is probably an effort to decapitate the muslim brotherhood. viewpoint,litary's that is what they have to do. the brotherhood will never accept what just happened, whether or not morsi was a good
9:25 am
president from the brotherhood's perspective, it has no choice to reject -- but to reject the move and sit on the legitimacy of mohamed morsi. that leaves the military with one option, execute or crackdown. i'm of the belief that the brotherhood's failure in government, their refusal to seriously pursue policy, insisted see on consolidating power is a big part of the reason why egypt is where it is now. that the coup, that was certainly brought about by mass protests, will necessarily make things much better. our guest is eric trager. can join the conversation. the numbers are on your screen. 202 -- 585 -- 3883 is a number
9:26 am
if you're outside the united states. you use the word coup. is this a coup? it is a politically loaded word to the american government. guest: the mechanism through which morsi was removed from power was the military, literally arresting him. pretend that this was notup that responsive to other political realities. i believe the military did not want to execute. speaking to military officials, they made it very clear that their previous experience running the country was a sour one. they are not trained to govern, to do police work. country is in disarray, if there is significant instability, they would feel
9:27 am
they had no choice. i don't think the military was eager to take over. washington should be aware that the military did what it did because of the fact that morsi had lost control of the country and become so unpopular that you had unprecedented protests .gainst him it would be a big mistake if washington punished the military for doing something that it itself did not want to do but had to do. analytically, we can't deny that this is a coup. was in egyptager during the anti-mubarak revolts. he is focusing on egyptian opposition parties. he is a washington institute for near east policy next generation fellow. compare your experience in cairo last week to the experience in
9:28 am
2007. guest: -- 2011. the difference on wednesday is there was a lot less fear in the air. people had no fear that there would be a police crackdown or fight with the military. that was very different and 2011. uprising had to face off with police who were defending the regime, defending , side with the military or side with the mubarak regime at the time. i even saw uniformed policeman in the protest, protesting against then-president morsi. was's how i knew that morsi never going to last. when i arrived in cairo on tuesday and i saw there was simply nothing, not the military, not the police and not the brotherhood either -- they
9:29 am
were significantly outnumbered by the protest -- when i saw there was nothing that would put these protests away, that's when i knew that morsi was on a clock. there was a lot less fear, a lot more jubilation. there was the feeling that they had just taken down somebody who had stolen their revolution. morsi had come to office promising to rule inclusively, appoint a female a christian vice president. vice president. he simply used his position to consolidate the brotherhood's for whatd exposed them they are. for people in the square who were extremely relieved to be rid of him started crying when his ouster was announced. i should say that that's only a part of the picture. elsewhere in cairo and elsewhere in egypt, you had many people
9:30 am
who had gathered to support morsi and who are not only disappointed, but outraged, feeling that something has been stolen from them. the happiness that many people quare, therir su fireworks and green lasers pointing at the military copters flying over, is misleading. what you will have in the coming days is supporters and opponents of the muslim brotherhood you can get out -- duking it out. scores of people have been injured and killed in the fighting. host: we go to a caller on the independent line in houston, texas. good morning. last call for houston. let's go to virginia on our line for independents. turned on your tv, you're on the air. -- turn down your tv, you're on the air.
9:31 am
jeff, you have got to talk to us. berlin to put jeff on hold so he can sort out his tv. -- we're going to put jeff on hold so we can sort out his tv. how dangerous is the situation point doesand what the international community need to weigh in, and through what means? guest: it's extremely dangerous. the military is trying to decapitate the muslim brotherhood, trying to put away -- the muslim brotherhood is a top-down organization with a pyramid structure in which the very top leaders distribute commands to lower levels, like the military. when you take out the top leaders and leave these cadres on their own, they become free radicals. when they are not responsive to any kind of strategy from the top or any real response, i
9:32 am
think they could be extremely violent. plus, the muslim brotherhood's allies have vowed to use violence. violently which has been a theme of the brotehrhood' -- brotherhood's rallies. response, it'sal going to be hard for the united states to assert leverage. the united states lost a lot of credibility because of the perception in cairo that washington was supporting the brotherhood regime, backing it. in large part because the administration refused to criticize the brotherhood during its many abuses, its crackdown on its own protesters during its attempt to consolidate power. in the "new york times," it was reported that the military knew very well that washington would not be happy with its ouster of morsi, but said we don't care.
9:33 am
the administration and international community will really have to focus on rebuilding its credibility with the military right now, a large part because for the time being whatever the military is doing, it does have the support of the people in egypt, at least a substantial portion of the mobilized population, and are pushing the military too hard will intensify the anger on the states -- streets towards the united states. let's go to jeff on our line for independents. eric thinkt does would happen, or would it happen if the military had taken no action? had the military taken no action, two things would've happened. the first is, it might have been the target of the protests. might have asked, how is the military allowing the muslim brotherhood to continue
9:34 am
to consolidate power and run the country into the ground? many in egypt are aware that the military for the last year did have a certain deal with the brotherhood. that deal was that the brotherhood would control the politics, the military would control foreign policy. unsustainablery for the military because of how strong the public reaction was against morsi. had the military not stepped in, you would've continue to have a president in egypt who did not exert any control over state institutions. egypt is a country of 85 million people, dwindling cash reserves, a population that is dependent on subsidies for food and gas. military did what it had to do, as undemocratic and unfortunate as that is. as much as i think it won't
9:35 am
really resolve many of egypt's long-term problems. host: we will go to a correspondent in cairo. thank you for talking with us, charles levinson. tell us about your sense of who is in charge right now. our guest eric trager is talking about the military's role. what personalities are we seeing surface? guest: the military remains a big power here. you also have this large mobilization which is being represented at the political representative of a broader coalition of both political parties on the more circular -- secular side.
9:36 am
these are the types of figures -- they have formed this unofficial alliance in this mobilization, with more remnants of the old order. [no audio] the elements that are trying to stand in the way of the democratic conditions that these --hose will those will be pursuing democracy. televisions,of state media behaving as it did in the mubarak area.
9:37 am
the old ways of doing things reemerged. host: a recent piece in the l," looking at a backtrack late saturday. give us a sense of how this played out. how do you even know who is in control? guest: there was a meeting with the interim president, the national salvation fund. mohamed elbaradei's name was put forward for prime minister. intentitary has been because they don't want this to be a purely secular movement.
9:38 am
they want some islamist involvement. the party is extremely uncomfortable with mohamed elbaradei. he is secular, pro-west in policy. he seems hostile to islamists. they essentially vetoed elbaradei's choice. there was a lot of bungling in the way was handled. they're going back to the drawing table today and trying to sort out, either get the party to go along and agree with that or come up with a better candidate. host: question for you from eric trager. do you have a sense of who the party would want as prime minister?
9:39 am
their choices are very off from the national salvation front's. what we're hearing is of the party said we will take aradei. but elb [indiscernible] everyone from apm under mubarak -- a p.m. under barbaric - mubarak. banker. central there's been a bunch of names, that will names probably be acceptable to both .ides elbaradei has a following among the liberal camp.
9:40 am
-- not be acceptable to both sides. amongdei has a following the liberal camp. [indiscernible] it's going to be harder to keep this [no audio] host: thanks for taking time to talk with us. guest: my pleasure. host: our guest is eric trager. a caller on our republican line. i wanted to get a take on the u.s. involvement. we have heard so much about 200 16's beings and 20 f-
9:41 am
sent into this regime that is been ousted. what do you think the implications of that -- the military has all of these type of weapons that are high-tech. what is our position? i'm very unclear on the u.s. andtion vis-à-vis israel vis-à-vis the state of things in egypt. wondering if as a country we have not lost our minds, having the best given to us. the muslim brotherhood has in their charter that they want to hamas, theseeda, other regimes. in their charter, not only is israel their enemies, but a great deal of the west. the u.s. is their enemies.
9:42 am
here we are, sending these sophisticated weapons over. look what happens here. can you make sense of all this for me? guest: thanks for your question. the weapons that we sent to egypt, which are vouchers for the egyptian military to buy american weapons here -- that is really aid to the military. historically the military aid has been our leverage, vis-à-vis the egyptian military. what we have seen in the last week is that this leverage is not what it used to be. intervened in the political situation in egypt knowing very well it would upset many people in washington and did it anyway because it felt like the situation was so dire that it had no choice. the big debate in washington will be whether that aid should be suspended because what
9:43 am
happened was to a large extent a coup, whether washington should look the other way because the military did what he had to do and the state was failing. i agree that the current policy of the administration is not clear. they have not gotten in front of this issue. a lot remains to be seen. my own review is that at this moment it would be a very bad to send military -- cut out terry aid to egypt. the military -- cut out military aid to egypt. the military did something it did not want to do. in the piece, she points gives aid tou.s. the military.
9:44 am
guest: one of the things that elected generals like to point out when the aid card is brought up is that it is not cached we are giving them. we are giving them the vouchers -- cash we are giving them. we are giving them the vouchers. the aid is definitely leverage. it will not only hurt the military, it will hurt us as well. it has to be used delicately. there are been many times in the post-mubarak transitional era when it would have been wise to use that aid. certainly we did threaten to withhold that aid back in 2012 when the first iteration of the military regime put a travel ban on americans who were working for pro-democratic ngo's.
9:45 am
the aid was never cut off, but formally not touched. the issue is that we have been so slow to hold anyone accountable in the last year and seem odd ifit will we now try to invoke the aid as a form of leverage against a regime thatlitary effectively responded to a mass outpouring and in pending state failure. is a eric trager washington institute for near east policy next generation fellow. he finished his phd, political science at the university of pennsylvania focusing on egyptian opposition parties. a caller on our independent line. my opinion is the only
9:46 am
way that things can get settled in egypt is to get the military out of the situation. voice,ple have to have a and the appropriate people that they can vote for that is .elping with their issues by allowing the military to continue to have control, there thatbe no peace, no talks will be appropriate for the people's will. guest, i would like to ask them, is that a possibility, for the military to be completely and totally out of the picture sooner or later? guest: i agree with you that the only way you would ever have real stability in egypt is with
9:47 am
a truly elected civilian government. that has to be the long-term goal of not just egyptians, but u.s. policy. we should not be blind to the basic structural realities of the country. that will create significant challenges in getting us there. the egyptian military has always been and remains the strongest institutionerful politically in egypt. it is not likely to remove itself from the political picture again unless it believes its interests will be protected through a certain level of autonomy. is enjoyed that autonomy specifically over its own economic interests and over foreign-policy for that one year now of mohamed morsi's presidency. but was clearly worried about
9:48 am
certain statements that morsi had made with regards to jihad and syria, certain deals he had struck via -- vis-à-vis israel. regrettably, i don't see the egyptian military exiting the picture for a while. i don't think it will have the confidence for a long time that it can remove itself from the picture and really let civilians rule without its own interests being damaged. united states should do everything it can to hold the military accountable, to make the military feel secure to a certain extent. we have to make sure we are focused on the right tools of leverage. aid, now military withholding aid would be a very blunt tool that would not only upset the military but upset a substantial portion of the population that in this moment
9:49 am
views the military as having saved it from the muslim brotherhood. that may be an important tool down the road. it is not the tool right now. we need to use a softer tools like engagement, getting out front and center and expressing our expectations of the egyptian military. host: a comment on twitter -- and willing to constitution be lamented before -- will a new constitution be implemented before elections? interested elections, and then a constitution. the reason it did that two years ago was because it had an understanding with the muslim brotherhood that you would have elections first and then the constitution. knew that theyd
9:50 am
would win elections the sooner they were held, and then be able to control the constitution process. thebrotherhood's control of constitutional process was a disaster. the military will not allow that. they will now do constitution first, then the new elections. a picture here from "the atlantic," the situation in egypt. a caller on our independent line. this is really going to mess up our foreign-policy if al .aeda was in charge now that we have destroyed the in america, there is nothing we can do about stocking americans are the
9:51 am
upon them. be enemies, right, before any of the people get along with each other? i thought they wanted their mohammed halos on -- host: do you believe that the american government was interested in seeing al qaeda forces in charge in north africa? guest: certainly not. there is this question of whether the removal of an elected islamist government in egypt will lead islamists elsewhere to abandon elections and turn to violence, much more forcefully. this is something that has been spoken about a lot in the last couple of days. this is based on a false assumption, which is that
9:52 am
islamism if elected is somehow itself nonviolent. what we have seen in the past year is that when islamists are out of power, in many cases they turned to violence. when they're in power, it is also very violent. we saw the muslim brotherhood try to shut down television statements, put its critics in , unleash its cadres on protesters outside the presidential palace. that certain types of islamists will turn to violence is based on a false assumption. when it comes to islamism, we're talking about an ideology that seeks to control societies and people's lives. violent.erently that is a key challenge that the united states will face moving forward, how to deal with the realitycause of that any ideology -- not just islamism -- any type of
9:53 am
totalitarian ideology that aims to control people will not be a force for stability. guest,ric trager is our washington institute for near east policy next generation fellow. imageslooking at the from "the atlantic." a caller on our line for democrats. professor, i have a question for you in regards to our foreign-policy and the muslim brotherhood in egypt. are we supporting them, or not supporting them? guest: is a good question, something that many egyptians ask me all the time. i was in egypt for the past year or so. my view is that the administration was not supporting the muslim brotherhood per se, was not pro- muslim brotherhood, but few do so few good in egypt to begin
9:54 am
with that it wanted -- viewed so few good options in egypt. the result of that was a refusal to criticize the muslim brotherhood when it acted abusively. when president morsi declared unchecked presidential authority, when the muslim brotherhood rammed through an , theist institution administration was largely silent. for many egyptians, that was interpreted as a type of support for the brotherhood. i don't think the administration supported, but it did a poor job of managing perception. that is something the administration really has to work on. it has to make sure in this tumultuous period that we will enter in and already tumultuous country that it does not throw its eggs in any one basket and no one thinks it is putting its eggs in any one basket. a caller from texas on our
9:55 am
independent line. i'm egyptian american. i've got some questions and a couple of comments. agree with eric on most of what he says, but i have a couple of comments. it's not a coup, it's a civilian movement. toe of the estimates go up 33 million. thele that could not go to square were standing in front of their houses. my mother-in-law was just standing in front of her house. people cannot withstand the .uslim brotherhood there is no economy. there is no jobs, no caps, no bread -- gas, no bread.
9:56 am
nose are people that have weapons, and no guns, like the muslim brotherhood. the military backed up the civilian movement. that is a revolution, not a coup. has been elected, but hitler was also elected. the third reich was also elected. .ut they are fascist the previous caller asked my what was thech was secret behind the it ministration backing up the muslim brotherhood? are they going to back up, or wrongeir money on the
9:57 am
[indiscernible] thank you. you raised a lot of very important points. when i and others call it a imply" i don't mean to that it wasn't a military intervention that was responsive mood inader reality or the country that was very anti- brotherhood and unwilling to tolerate the brotherhood for another day. the june 30t after protest, the military likely would not have intervened and not intervened then. but when we call it a coup, we are simply describing the technical mechanism through which morsi was removed from power. this is not meant to denigrate the millions of egyptians that we saw, that i saw come out into the streets on june 30. and afterwards, you are correct
9:58 am
that this is a population in which an important segment is simply fed up with the brotherhood and that is why the military intervened. secondly, you are correct that the fact that they brotherhood was elected does not make it democratic, a point i have made myself many times. that makes what many egyptians did in taking to the streets very noble and brave. analytically, the reality is that what happened is not necessarily going to make things in egypt significantly more stable. that was the case either way. whether morsi state or went, you would have significant instability. trying to help egypt take the next step is what i'm concerned with. as to whether it is the end of political islam, i don't think so. thebest evidence is that
9:59 am
north party is now part of the coalition that is working with the military to iron out the next steps. it was the party that stood in the way of mohamed elbaradei an interimnted as prime minister. islamists are not only at table now, but are likely to remain important players in egypt moving forward. the question is what happens with the brotherhood. the brotherhood is being decapitated with a lot of their top leaders being put away, including morsi himself. but the brotherhood is only one segment of political islam in egypt. i think you will have islamists on the scene for a while. host: eric trager, washington institute for near east policy next generation fellow. .hank you for joining me
10:00 am
here is a preview of our show tomorrow. we will hear from russell moore, from the southern baptist convention liberty commission president. executive galland, director of >> coming up next it is the new president of the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on