tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 23, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
host:good morning it's tuesday august 23rd. president obama is headed for ouisiana to survey damage an recovery efforts in the wake of recent flooding in the state. campaign trail, hillary clinton is dealing with the fallout from newly released e from her time as secretary of state. we begin this morning on the washington journal and the virginia where terry mccullough yesterday the voting store rights for felons who completed their sentences and probation. coming less than two months before the presidential election the move a ling
political grab for votes. we're asking our viewers what you think. those who have been convicted of a felony should lose the right to vote for life? at what point should the right to vote be restored. 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. 202-748-8002. and special line for convicted felons. 202-748-8003. you can all catch up with us on media on twitter at cspan, on facebook and facebook.com/cspan. very good tuesday morning to you. in this country nearly 6 million american citizens are unable to criminal se of past convictions. yesterday the governor of irginia sought to do something about it in a ceremony at the virginia civil rights memorial talked about his
renewed push to restore voting rights for some convicted felons. a bit of what he had to say. >> today we are here to talk about an issue of justice. the restoration of civil rights. this is an issue that i have about for many, many years. i personally believe in the of second chances and dignity and worth of every single human being. extending voteding rights to individuals living working and paying taxes in our communities partisan act. among the news organizations was the richmond times. headline mcauliffe said felons right to vote will get agency. review by state that's the headline. reporter is jim nolan with the richmond times dispatch. joins us on the phone to talk s through how we got to that point. good morning. talk about where this came from. this was a renewed push by the governor, something that the
courts had been involved in already in virginia. >> yes, john. so in april, the governor had to get more felons who ompleted their felons in the voting laws. virginia is one of ten states that did not automatically felon voting rights upon completion of sentence and parole.on and so what has to happen in virginia up until the governor's rder was that you had to individually apply for a period of time and make application to governor who granted your rights on an individual basis. now, the previous governor had process by at mailing a letter of voting to those who tion had been completed -- who had time and done their parole and probation. however, governor mcdonald that only nonviolent
felons could receive that letter both felons who paid their court costs and restitution. donegovernor mcauliffe has since taking office, he restored 18,000 p until april to people and last year he lifted the restriction on the need to and restitution republicans.d this year what governor mcauliffe decided to do, he read and he saw in n his opinion no obstacle in the would prevent at him from issuing a mass order. and that's essentially what he did. send an individual letter to a felon who had put eted their service, he together a list of people whom so and then d done essentially by an announcement, he basically restored their rights. the republicans who run the general assembly objected to his saying it was not going
along with the constitution. of course, if you eluded to in there was a , political overtone to this. obviously governor mcauliffe to hillary clinton. he ran her 2008 campaign for president. state.ia is a swing so many on both sides of the issue saw this as a political move. democrats said the were trying to supress the that ial influx of votes might come from restoration. democrats said that republicans supress the ng to vote. > outside of virginia, you mentioned bob mcdonald a republican former governor of virginia. mcauliffe ith terry talking about this, he framed this as a civil rights issue. he had to say. >> well, essentially virginia, that does not es automatically restore voting rights. this ban on voting was enshrined virginia constitution way
back in 1930. evolved into had to people who had served their time. roughly 50% of virginia's felon african-american, he governor was likening it to ineffective jim crow era law where poll tax and literacy quite ere used effectively to prevent african-americans and other from casting ballots in elections. o that's what he was referring to. he feels like once you have done you should be returned your basic civil rights which are voting, being able to jury, being able to hold elective office and being a notary public. rights restored under an order like the governor gave. and what the governor was forced republicans were governors suing the
administration is go back to an process.al restoration >> the governor of virginia calling this one of the pressing ivil rights issues of the day quote unquote from his statement that he put out yesterday. before you go, what's the path forward here? re we going to continue to see legal challenges up to and past election day? >> well, the republicans said to monitor g mcauliffe's process. essentially what he was nnouncing yesterday is he is going back to the way that it was done before. but the governor's people have going to push to get all 200,000 of those felons believe are technically to ified to get their right vote back, they'll do it. the interesting thing about before, when he issued his mass restoration felons he individual were not handed -- were not sent saidvelope, a letter, that
their rights had been restored. the difference now is that they sent that letter. when you send somebody that letter, it's policy in virginia them a voter send registration card. so in a strange way, the fact governor lost in court may end up going back to a felons who are restored their rights will be voter effectively a registration card to vote. concerns.are political we could see a greater increase voters and in registered as a result of going back to the old process. reporter an political with the richmond times dispatch. thanks for walking us through what happened in the state of yesterday. >> thank you. host: we're opening our phones to this question. banned from be voting for life? if not, want to hear from you at hat point the right to vote should be restored. republicans 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000.
independents 8002. line for felons whether serving ime or completed serving their sentences 202-748-8003. we'd like to hear your thoughts through this topic for the first 45 minutes this morning. facebook.eigh in on on facebook matthew writes in absolutely they should lose life.right to vote for if they were concerned about voting they wouldn't have is what the felony matthew had to say. below that marissa writes in if did their time and paid for the crime the right to vote should be restored. commonsense. and curt writes in how about right to vote t only for repeat felons? conversations happening on twitter. happening on we're having the conversation on the washington journal. thomas is up first on the phone georgia, on that line for felons. a democrat. good morning to you.
at what point do you think they should be restored, if they should be restored. >> caller: yeah. they should be restored to vote. person got sentenced, went to jail, done their time, done their probation. they are still an american citizen. why shouldn't they be able to vote? think they should be able to vote right after they do their time. why should you hold somebody captive in america? it's not a communist country. still citizens. even me. i was a convicted felon. in 1999.rug case had two back to back drug cases. but i had violated probation. got the second time i sent me down -- i chance to go a
there. three months. for if you're going to be serving the time after three months you a prison.d to my situation, i didn't have a violent history. time. my first o i didn't get a chance to go -- not the prison. i didn't go into the prison system. hey sent me back after three months. host: what about those who were violent crimes? you talk about your drug charges. re there other crimes and felonies that if you're convicted of you think somebody to vote se the right for life? >> caller: no. no one should. if you've done something, if you made a mistake. some people are just bad. people deserve to stay in prison. but the people that make got out whatever, and and done their time, whether it was something violent or nonviolent, they're still a citizen. lose their right
to vote forever. that doesn't make any sense. for the call this morning. georgia one of those states with restored upon re the completion of one's sentence including prison, parole and probation. to see a map of the different criminal disenfranchisement logged across united states it's on the brennan center for justices website. red there have the strictest streubg shuns on that. disenfranchise for all people with felony convictions. florida, in iowa and kentucky. you can look at all the on erent classifications that map on the brennan center for justice website. other o through some stats as we go through this segment. we want to hear from you. mississippi, a democrat. larry, good morning. >> caller: good morning. rights shouldn't be taken away because you go to
jail. still an american citizen. there are some veterans that went to jail and their voter taken away.been crazy.hat is you have a nice day, sir. host: all right. massachusetts. an independent. joe, good morning. morning.good i don't think the right to vote should ever be taken away. one ct, i'll go you further. i think prisoners serving their time should be allowed to vote. those as 3/5 of a real vote. states ere are some where there is no people nchisement for with criminal convictions. according to the brennan center map.ustice maine being one of those states and vermont being one of those states as well. ray is in raleigh, north carolina, republican. ray, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you?
host: good. go ahead. caller: i don't think the issue vote. be if they should the issue should be if illegal immigrants, they shouldn't have right to vote. that's why they are here, so they can get the votes. fact that illegal immigrants in this country should not be able to vote no hillary says or anybody else. they should not be here or be able to vote. felons are american citizens who did their time, should have their rights reinforced. thank you. several ve done segments about immigration. we're focusing on felons in the out of that news coming virginia. don the d trump addressing news. here's what he had to say about doing in overnor was virginia. >> i am very proud i have to say support of almost -- that i know of, almost the
entire law enforcement community. so important. so we're talking about a lot of on.erent transactions going hillary clinton is banking on her friend terry mcauliffe on of violent sands -- felons to the voting booths in n effort to cancel out the votes of both law enforcement victims.e they are letting people vote in election that allowed to vote. that is sad. so sad. host:: we have a special line felons if you want to weigh in on this topic.
from is on that line colorado. ere you listening to donald trump there. what's your response to what he had to say? disagree with what he was talking about. i feel if you did your time and released, you have a job and you're paying taxes you should be able to vote. are truly republicans going to be affected. majority of people that are felons are black and brown individuals. definitely going to be a benefit on the democratic side. see the reason they would be against it. i don't think no one should be banned for life from voting. host: nearly 6 million americans unable to vote because of a past conviction. across the country 13% of african-american men have lost vote. right to seven times the national average. strasberg, virginia, an independent, also
for felons. does this affect you? caller: i applied two years ago. out of prison for 31 years. i am a pastor. pillar of my community. i have encouraged young children the criminal m life. and i have been pushing to get rights back in virginia. that has served their time and has gotten out vote.d be able to that's where i stand on it. people that think that just because you went to prison for something, that you're no good. as pastor, i have to say that given out more than one or two chances to each individual. that was my follow-up question for you. one of the viewers who is
commenting on facebook said that perhaps not the first time, but a repeat should perhaps have their voting rights lost for life. you disagree? that it ell, i think should be investigated. i think rapists should never be public office or their voting rights back. i think someone that has murder, a vicious capital murder, should never be their -- to or get hold an elected office. but for those that have lower crimes, i did my crime when i was 16. years in out eight prison. as a young individual that does have violent crimes, i think i should be able to vote. > do you mind talking about what that crime was? caller: i did a series of when i was younger. i feel like i paid for those.
paid dearly for them. host: did you ever think about were rights when you younger? did you vote at all before? caller: no. i grew up in alexandria. broken home. i never knew my father. my mother was not involved in my life. the streets. i never thought about voting. had children and i got wife prison and my encouraged me to stay on the track. and now as a person in the community, i would love to run office. but i can't do that. even with the experience i have encouraging those in my community and being and ved in tax assessments things like those for people that are less fortunate, that's as far as i can go. i have a lot of people that want
me to run for office but i can't. host: where in the process are you? you said you started three years ago. where in the process are you to your voting rights restored? got a letter from the theynor's office that said were still investigating for my rights restored. used an attorney. she said that she's never seen it taken almost two years to get someone's rights restored. mcauliffe signs a bill to get these rights restored. i even went and got a voting card. it was sent to me. couple days later i was told that it was a mistake and i can't vote. host: you were caught up in this process of when he restored the and then more people the judicial branch stepped in in virginia?
yes.er: i mean, my children, i have always encouraged them to do the right thing. first time in my lifetime,and my wife's my children have -- one of my graduated from liberty university and is now going to regent university. son graduated high school. my family, we had 14 kids, siblings, and none of them graduated or went to college. want to encourage them to that y life and show them you make a mistake, but it shouldn't be held against you life e rest of your because you were 16. to talk to or me them sometimes about these know, because they, you they don't understand that if you make a small mistake, it everything.ou >> thank you for talking to us about it on "the washington
journal." as well in goose creek, south carolina, an independent. dan, good morning. yeah.: good morning. judicial at until the system is truly equitable to all this country, inappropriate. rich and powerful people make mistakes and poor people display criminal tendencies. unfortunately that's the way it is. host: all right. kenny is in piedmont, south carolina. morning. you're up next on "the washington journal." caller: yeah. the term ring convicted. of s never convicted nothing. i had a judge adjudicate me. try to fight it, they trump is charges up to the maximum charges where you'll plea bargain, you know?
i give the state of florida $1500 they will correct voting right thing, you know? o how come it comes down to money? host: right now you're not allowed to vote in the state of south carolina. caller: i'm not sure. south carolina, on their form voter i.d., at the bottom the question is asked if you adjudicated guilty in the case.ition of a you orida, they just nixed altogether, you know? at least south carolina has a provision for an adjudication. host: right. florida having some of the when it comes to losing the right to vote if you felony.icted of a "the new york times" notes that almost all states denied felons to vote but many automatically restore voting
rights after a violator prison term, probation or all three. four states ne of voter rips voters of rights. only kentucky and florida have a higher share of african-americans whose felony convictions denied them the to vote. these are stats in "the new york times" in their writeup of mcauliffe's actions yesterday. we're talking about it on "the washington journal." republicans 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000. independents 8002. nd special line for felons, whether you're serving your time or completed your sentences. hear your stories. 202-748-8003. daniel's a democrat from ely betville, pennsylvania. daniel, good morning. caller: good morning. i say that , may
most of the people that are in mentally ill or circumstances where they have to sort of like earn bones in order to be bad. most of them, the ones that probably vote are fascist. host: do you have experience in system?on how do you know folks in the prison system? it.ler: i have read about host: okay. caller: and the reason i believe prisoners that are actually right on should have the o vote is because the distribution of tax dollars doesn't go to the population they're from. it goes to the population where
the prison is located. so they get no benefit from that. but the people that live in areas, these small towns extra boost ey get and federal funding because of of the prisons. thing?ust say one other that i had seen on television mystery in washington, d.c. where they got these stains monuments. panel of appointed a experts and it's happening all country. you see? ethanol.m ethanol is produced. benefit from e producing it. energy to much
produce it. with voting tick restrictions for felons this morning. lot of folks calling in to talk that topic. rafik is in baltimore, maryland. good morning. yes, good morning. thanks for taking my call. to say isg i am going an e is no such thing as american citizen. should be e voting due to the ex-felons fact that it's unconstitutional served their time and yet still being held for they corrected or served their time to do. voting is done, something is done to make change. we have to be mindful that that not the only way change could be done. look at oint, when you
question he had. prison sed felons from for nonviolent crimes, given them pardons. the best way, the most effective ay to make changes, to be involved in legislation, introducing your local federal t and government to getting involved or the general assembly congress in order to revamp or introduce laws. to be don't need registered to vote to do that. topic, we're going to be talking about the federal and the president's efforts for pardons and the commuted sentences later on this on friday we'll have the usa today reporter who's been several that and stories on that topic. tune in on friday in our 9:15 on "the washington journal" to hear about that.
few comments on twitter as we're discussion this morning. edwin christian writes in, the time for the e crime. they should be allowed to serve as normal citizens again and be past.from their steve says all constitutional rights for felons that are fully rehabilitated off parole should be restored. what's the point of rehabilitation then if not? one of the comments from verne, why should they be banned for they have served their time? give them back their rights. some response from republicans n virginia to the democratic governor's move yesterday. william howell put out a statement saying undoubtedly the restored the rights of some deserving citizens, but there is also no doubt that he reserved the rights of some criminals. he people, the people of virginia deserve a full explanation of the policy,
specifically, why he is rights to habitual offenders, those who have not yet paid back their crimes and commonwealth's worst sex offenders. fromment put out yesterday william howell. republican speaker of the house of delegates in virginia. on that line in new york for felons. ben, good morning. washington he journal." caller: good morning. are you doing? host: excellent. caller: i am a convicted felon. it's been past seven years. i'm originally from texas. rick santorum he fought to estore rights, mitt romney basically fought against it. attacking him. rick scott reversed it in 2007 so that felons could not apply the court for restoration until after seven years. guess my comment is, what's the benefit of taking
from felons? away of restrictions and rights that get taken away rom felons when they get convicted. onsee the methodology of taking the right of an american sited zen's voting privilege away from them. sost: one of our earlier caller was on the same line. voting that perhaps rights should be taken away for those who are rapists, those who murders. i don't think there's a line at which that voting rights should life?ken away for caller: well, no. citizens.till american when i was 17 years old i was convicted of stealing beer. i was convicted of a felony. it was a very long strenuous through the criminal court system. but i still don't understand why years later, when we have the type of presidential
candidate and everything going in today's society, why i still wouldn't be allowed to vote. would be the benefit of not allowing someone to vote? there is some type of government agenda or they don't want criminals to vote. would you not want a criminal to vote if it's an american citizen and those votes do count? host: that's ben from new york. new york one of the states where voting rights are restored automatically once released from and discharged from parole. those stats coming from the brennan center for justice. staying on that line for felons. city, new atlantic jersey. tony, good morning. good morning, cspan. jersey.ation, i'm from my situation happened in 2010. okay? jersey, soon as you get arrested, you haven't even
a t to court yet and you get letter in the mail talking about you can't vote. is, after i it all finished my time, for a on and looking etter back from the state, i had to go through a whole lot of changes just to get my right back to vote. recently, it's funny that you have this topic on this morning. ecause i just went down there last week because i'm sick of all this stuff about donald trump and all this. it's really getting on my nerves, this whole election stuff. but i realized that. so i went out of my way and i of to go through a lot things. i just this week got my name ack on the rolls to be able to vote again here in jersey. but the point i'm trying to make they hurry up and send you a
letter in the mail to stop you voting, but when you get out of jail, they don't send you letter back saying okay, you've completed your time, now you can come back and vote. do that. don't what they're hoping that you do is just get frustrated and don't period. more that's what the whole thing of it is. ofs is what frustrates a lot people. i have one more comment then i'm done. further. it a step when i'm more mad about than voting, even though i completed can get a job because of that box on the application, have you ever been convicted of crime. they say are you rehabilitated this and that. still you can't get a job. forcing you to do is keep selling drugs, keep robbing somebody, go knock in the head and get money to survive. you got to eat. you got to have a roof over your head. then all these politicians get on tv and then they talk about, trump talking about the black community, this and that.
why they robbing, why they shooting? because they're fighting over drugs, turf wars and everything else going on just like in iraq other parts of the world. he is right about that. but that's what it's coming to country because of the lack of jobs and education. you know what i'm saying? day.have a good that's all i have to say. i get excited and i get upset about this whole topic. tony in atlantic city, new jersey. a few news stories to point out having as we continue this conversation. blocked in ama was his effort over transgender schools. in federal court in texas blocked the obama administration's order public schoolsel nationwide to regulate restrooms nd locker room access on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex. this story in "the washington times." the court sided with texas and 13 other states that sued the federal government over the arguing the mandate oversteps federal authority and
titleerpreted title 7 and 9 which bar sex discrimination education.nt and ken paxton said this president is attempting to rewrite the enacted by the elected officials of the people and fundinging to take away for schools to force them to conform. that cannot be allowed to continue. that we story mentioned at the top of the involves hillary clinton, more headaches over e-mails from when she served as secretary of state. story in "the wall street journal" notes a federal judge is prodding the state quickly review a batch of 14,900 recently e-mails as the controversy over hillary clinton's correspondence while he served as america's top diplomat continues to simmer. an order the judge set a deadline for the department to septemberhe review by 22nd to determine which ones contain sensitive government are mation and which strictly personal.
that judge's request came on the a e day as the release of separate batch of e-mails showing a clinton foundation official seeking access to the mrs. clinton le was secretary of state. those e-mails obtained through a lawsuit by a conservative watch dog group judicial watch which on our program yesterday on "the washington journal." clinton family charitable found lime light as republican presidential candidate donald trump was attacking its activities. lots to hear about that. several stories about that in the papers. we'll hear about it. we'll keep you up to date on the news as it continues. a few more calls to this question. should felons be banned from life? for jackie is in florida one of the states with the strictest restrictions on felons and their voting rights. good morning, jackie. good morning. o, your rights should not be removed for life because you become a felon.
finished, entence is that is judge has given you, one your sentence is finished that the judge has isen you, then your sentence complete. voting is not a privilege. it's a right. the nteed to you by constitution. removing a citizen's right for you're sentence is four or five years is completely nconstitutional because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. the other reason that a person's right should be removed for life if they get life in prison, penalty or for treason. that's the on reasons that i can think of. when you talk ab restoring those rights, do you think it should happen when they finish sentence or should it involve their parole or after rehabilitation efforts? at what point in the process, i uess i'm asking, do you think the right to vote should be restored?
should be hink it restored one their sentence is completed. that would include any community service, any parole, any their prison sentence. host: okay. jackie in florida. aaron is on that line for felons in arlington, virginia. good morning. terry his order that mcauliffe issued yesterday, would it impact you? yes.er: yes it would. i had petitioned for my rights restored back in april. the hen when he issued executive order, i contacted the ffice and they let me know, my rights were restored. i registered for a voter registration card. that in the mail. and then i guess it was last before i e week received in the mail, you know, the supreme r from ourt saying that they had been
rescinded and my voting rights had been taken back. it did ensure me that mcauliffe was going to be signing more orders. getting a will be letter in the mail letting me now that i'm part of that 13,000. back in ed my crime 2008. mine was a dui. for a habitual offender that. but since 2008 i have been sober now for over eight years, seven, eight years. and i have changed my life around. degrees.tten two i have a child. i have a beautiful wife. it's a shame that, you know, that candidates and this an politics get into because it's not guaranteed that hose people that are being
restored their rights are gonna democrat. and by donald trump coming out against this and the supreme coming out ginia against it, republicans in general coming out against it cause. hurts their a lot of these people, virginia is a very republican state. so a lot of people that they are keep from voting are, you know, i think people that would be voting for them. host: can i ask you, what has election day been like for you conviction in 2008? 2010 midtermstion, been like for you? to -- at mean, i went the time i was finishing up my four year degree at georgetown. it was a topic of discussion was heavily debated in each class. my peers and
everyone. opinion. it's like i have an opinion, i you know, factual claims for my opinions, yet when it, i don't have the to effect that opinion or that vote. watch.ust host: people will come up to you, they don't know about your past. you gonna vote for in this election, what is your response? my response is basically the person that i would vote for i had the ability. a lot of the time, i mean, i was gonna vote for -- i'm an african-american, but i was for mccaingonna vote in 2008. but i was serving my time at that time and i wasn't able to do that. just tell them who
it is that i would vote for and why. i don't ever bring up -- i typically don't let them know i'mnot able to vote because a felon. host: if you get that right november's fore election day, who are you gonna vote for in this election? caller: i would hands down vote for hillary clinton. i'm sorry. i think donald trump, i think he is the most dangerous person possibly hold an office. the way that he groups everyone without thinking that there are individuals within a particular community, hispanic be community, the muslim community, the african-american community. we're not all -- he's trying to get our vote last week saying, you know, your communities are trash, your trash.s are you've got unemployment. you've got happier people in jail.
it's like, really? like we're not all -- all are not mericans felons. granted, i am. but not all african-americans are felons. not all of them are uneducated. not all of them live in you know, that are, horrible. country.d for our i definitely don't trust hillary clinton as much as some people do. her far more than i do donald trump. aaron in arlington, virginia. just across the potomac river here. wallace is in lafayette. good morning. be banned from voting for life? be er: no, they shouldn't banned from voting for life. stphtason is because here vote of louisiana, we can once we do all the paroles and conditions of your parole. voting rights should be
restored. but the thing of it is, you we've been conditioned to think that only politicians can our problems. maybe they don't want to give rights back voting because they have woken up and recognized that it's politicians our create a lot of problems. this is why they don't want to give felons their voting rights back. also, you know, we have learned through the years watching felons try to get rights ghts, voting back, that they recognize god forgives, men don't. hard for y it's so felons to get their voting rights back. gonna l people you're send them to prison. when you get out of prison, they rehabilitated. who is rehabilitating who now? call.s for taking the i have been trying to get on cspan for the longest. morning. got on this
i appreciate everything cspan to the to bring news area. host: thanks. call again sometime down the road. gonna do it for our first segment. joined by will be joseph anthem and ron poll lack of families usa. they will be here to discuss the affordable health care act. major insurer is pulling out of 11 states. ira rheingold will be consumer scuss the financial protection bureau's recent proposal to overhaul debt collection rolls. that's all coming up on "the washington journal."
host: last week aetna major it was announced that dropping out of the health care act market places in 11 of 15 it's operating in. here to talk ab what that means antos from ack, joe american enterprises institute. joe, we'll start with you. blow is aetna's departure to the affordable care act? well, we forget, i don't think it's a huge blow. news.'s not exactly united health care is the first to say they were gonna drop out. humana dropped out in july. have aetna. the problem, of course, is why
are they dropping out? and the answer is, there are problems with the law. pollack when you were here after united health care called that you much to do about relatively little. s this aetna's departure, a story that will have a much bigger impact? alile much ado about more. i don't think it's a big deal following reasons. etna had altogether 911,000 subscribers in the exchange. they're gonna keep a bunch of those. take a look at what of the prised in terms total number of people in coverage through the affordable it's about 6% of the total load in terms of those who lose coverage. so it is a problem, but it isn't a huge problem. you have to understand of course here are a number of insurers
that still find it quite profitable to participate. some are expanding coverage. groups like cigna, kaiser permanente. they all are participating. hey find it worth while to participate. i interesting question, john, think to ask is, mark berlini, ceo of , president and aetna, in april, he talked about deal.t was a good not only was he not intending to contract, to reduce aetna's participation, he wanted to 15 states to 20 states. lookingost: he was also at a merger at this time, too. >> that's correct. in july he wrote a note to the department of justice saying if approved he'd reconsider whether he was going exchange. the
here re's more at issue than just aetna feeling that they can do well in the exchange. host: do you buy that? >> no. belini knew how bad things were going to be. politicalall it was a statement. he was speaking to washington. e wasn't speaking to his stockholders. this latest move comes on the of revelation that the several hundred dollars billion dollar losses they sustained are increasing. >> you might take a look at the better itself. about why it lked was a good deal. he was talking about the cost of requiring customers. said this was a good deal. ost: you talk about other insurance companies are finding this profitable.
why didn't united health care it profitable? why are some of these larger companies not finding it to operate in these markets? >> well, some of the companies like united, the individual place is not the market place that they have excelled in. united their big line of business is with employer sponsored insurance. insurers, se larger their biggest line of business individual in the market place. companies that have done fairly well with respect to the individual market place that are finding staying in the exchange is a good thing. companies are best equipped to deal with this new market place. if you want to join our discussion about the health of the affordable care act in the last week thatws aetna was going to be leaving 11 were 15 states that they operating in next year. receive your you
insurance through the care act. 202-748-8000. f you have employer provided insurance 202-748-8001. uninsured 202-748-8002. pollack been on before talked about the affordable care act. is a national organization for health care consumers. been around for about 35 years. e actually did push for health reform for a long time. our mission is to try to make access t everybody has to high quality affordable health coverage and care. of the upporters affordable care act, no surprise. we think that while the affordable care act is a
it's ic accomplishment, not perfect. there are a lot of things we can improve. it's our intention to make sure that happens. what are your area of expertise? >> mostly health policy. expert as well. ron's proposals are going to cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. we will be talking about minutes this t 45 morning. is our first guest. gets his insurance through his employer. good morning. caller: i'm from arkansas. arkansas all started went together and came up with what they call the private option. it's been successful. ow that we've gone through a huge election and democratic overnor turned into a republican governor. they turned around and did it
again. the arkansas. made had got together and everything work. it's amazing that he finds in the circle for insurance. is other people getting it socialism. so my point is, we should be for insurance for all it should bet have thinking about why they have it and we should give it up. businesses get expense deductions. public employees have it. it.profits have so why is it when you help other socialism? becomes thank you very much. host: we'll let mr. antos respond. >> i never said anything like that, robert. of are quoting me wrong, course. i, like most people, think that
everybody ought to have access insurance. the problem with the affordable care act is, the word affordable, it's not affordable and it's not the kind of nsurance that a lot of people like robert thought that he was going to get. it's not the kind of coverage companies, i'm not with a big company, but people with get ompanies typically because that's part of the compensation. > robert's made a very important point. arkansas tried to do something basis.partisan they succeeded. there were a good number of arkansas who in did not like the affordable care they found a way to extend coverage particularly for low income people. we're going to see such bipartisanship in the future. distant the reason for that, let's assume right now hillary clinton winning, at least all the polls seem to say that.
nd if she's elected i think it sends a clear signal and tells people like joe and others that affordable care act is here to stay. it's not going to be revealed years.eight probably longer than that. that encourages bipartisanship which has not existed for quite a long time. hopefully some of the difficulties that the affordable care act has experienced, people joe and me who have somewhat different points of iew can come together and say here are some reasonable fixes to the affordable care act that better.e it there's a very important historical lesson. hen the social security act of 1935 passed. people think it's one of the ost extraordinary pieces of legislation in domestic history. . major en harolded as a accomplishment. legislation 1935 failed to protect over half the women in the work force.
people of irds of color in the work force. those things not fixed over time. at the ld look affordable care act the same way. it's a historic step in the right direction. it's not perfect. it can be and will be approved, improved, if we get the kind of i think willp that happe happen. hillary clinton wins the election, does that give to the affordable care act? >> depends what she does. he has to be willing to make changes that are absolutely necessary. even politicals like ron would some of the changes. would disagree with some that naturally able to make a statement, insurance market. that if she ident wins she will come to congress and try to make a reasonable republicans. if she doesn't do that, then she
it. forget about she has to realize that it's a two-party system and that it is her to make the first move. >> she does have a history of that kind of bipartisanship. she's already offered a variety she does have a history of that kind of partisanship and she has already offered a variety of proposals. going to see something different than what we have seen since 2010 when the regulation was passed. very little possibility for doing something in between. >> if you look at what they have proposed you will know that even though the first line of every proposal says repeal obamacare all the other lines basically say -- i have heard a lot of repeal, not much replace. post a health affairs blog running through the house republicans plan if you want to
look at that. jim has been waiting in leesburg, florida. he gets his insurance through the affordable care act. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm 72 years old and in pretty good health. when you have auto insurance you are penalized by how you drive. health insurance should be similar. better care of yourself -- i don't go to the doctor very often. i go for my yearly checkup. i stay healthy and even healthy. if insurance companies offered that incentive like health programs -- it would be more affordable for everybody. it would take better care of your health you shouldn't be
paying the same as people who abuse themselves. host: are their programs that do that to incentivize good health? one of the things the affordable care act does is provide preventive care pre-deductible. different undertake ways of keeping themselves , it does provide health. big advances of the affordable care act was we said we are no longer going to allow the insurance companies to discriminate against people who have a pre-existing condition. one has asthma or diabetes or high blood pressure or a history of cancer were. they are denied insurance in the first place. i don't think jim is suggesting we go back to that. some of the republicans when they talk about repealing the entire statute we would go back to that.
i do think incentivizing good wellior in terms of eating and taking care of oneself and there's lots of room for trying to provide incentives for that. host: dawn in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. it just seems kind of ridiculous amazing to me that a large company like aetna is unable to where profit in a market other large corporations are doing fine. it really kind of baubles the imagination to think they should thatthat bad of a company they can't make a profit in a market where everybody else is making money. feels i'm sure mark insulted. the reality is most of the insurance companies are losing
money. none of them thought from the beginning they were going to make money for the first couple of years. the reality is that even the blues are losing money. look at bob the ship skin. heis an insurance expert and documents how much money the companies are losing. it is true that medicaid typical plans are the ones making money. there is the reason. have very low cost and very tight networks because they are medicaid plans. if are basically paying medicaid rates. you have united and aetna who go in and they are the highest pairs. you go into a big health system and you negotiate with whoever is in charge.
they have control over that market. say,u are melina you can we can bring in a lot more customers and pay $10 more. if you are united or aetna can say we will bring more customers and we have to pay you $50 less. it's not a good market. guest: here's one thing to take into account. when you have an aetna or united which really did not specialize in the individual market place there's a learning curve that has to take place. some of them quite frankly underpriced their premium. that is not an unusual thing. when you start in a market you want to get the largest market share. most of these companies that didn't have experience in the individual market place were not sure what to charge since usually the name of the game is cap mean market share. some of them underpriced. some of them have to make
corrections. united thats like had the least experience in the individual markets are the ones that had trouble. host: let's talk about the market next year and what it's going to look like. the new york times column looked at the number of carriers in different counties and states around the country and what that marketplace will look like next year after aetna's departure. states and counties in purple on this map are the ones that will only have one carrier as the option in the aca marketplace. the pink will have two providers. the white color three plus providers. let's talk about pricing in those markets that have just one provider. one thing that your viewers need to understand is that'su have one company
providing coverage it doesn't mean you have only one plan to choose from. most of the companies offer a variety of plans. from a consumer perspective there are two sets of issues that we care about. one, we want to make sure that our provider is in the network of our plan. to fact that there are going be numerous plans offered even by one company should take care of that. the issue you raise is a little more difficult. that relates to price. because it's good to have competition. competition helps bring prices down. perspectivesumer the consumer cares mostly about what does he or she pay out-of-pocket. one of the things your viewers need to understand on the affordable care act probably do understand -- there are significant subsidies provided to people all the way up to 400%
of the federal poverty level. four with income below $97,000. subsidies are provided on a sliding scale. the lower your income the higher the subsidy. the bottom-line for individuals is what do i have to pay out-of-pocket after the subsidy? i think what you are going to isd getting to your question that the overwhelming majority of people are not going to find a significant change because as the premium goes up so does the subsidy. host: this story in politico. the county that obamacare forgot. this is the one county in arizona that has no health care providers expected to be in the market next year. in the exchange.
there will still be blue cross in the nonexchange market. the insurance commissioner is trying to get blue cross which is losing money big-time in arizona to go into that market. it probably will because that buys them goodwill with the regulator and maybe it will give them a slightly higher increase in the premium. let's be clear about this. if are speaking as everything is going to be just great and we don't know that. the leading expert on measuring premium increases estimates that right now it looks like it's going to be a 24% average increase across all the plants in the exchange market. you are right. there are subsidies. the key thing that we saw last open enrollment, hhs was saying look around and find another plan.
the plan you are in is probably going to go way up. people are going to have to work their way down from a plan they may have been happy with to a plan that likely is much harder to deal with. host: todd is waiting to chat with you both in ohio. he gets insurance through his employer. caller: what i find you are all missing although i understand the logic -- you are all missing the problem is the individual mandate is an intensely evil maneuvering scheme that should be -- and be thrust upon private citizens. participate and decide you are going to be subjected to the fine of 600 plus dollars or more which goes up every year then you decide you are not going to pay that you basically had six jeff did yourself -- subjected yourself to prosecution.
people should do the experiment that i did. most of my personal affairs are in atlanta. you take cleveland clinic in cleveland and university hospital in cleveland" $1000 aside and walk through what it would cost you to get a good physical. get a dentist somewhere and teeth cleanings and your eyes checked. maybe some additional blood work such as a pregnancy test or std test. prostate exam. you will find at the end of that $1000 you still have a little bit of money left. you find out everything you need to know if you are an individual who takes relatively good care of themselves through exercise and live a low risk lifestyle and have a low risk job type lifestyle and live in a neighborhood where they don't have to be too concerned. you don't have to be a
participant in health care insurance. you will subject yourself to the possibility of something bad happens that you need insurance four. then you should have to suffer the consequences of that. but if that doesn't happen to you you should not be subjected to a $600 fine. host: let me get a response from ron pollack. guest: the argument that todd is making you hear from a number of young invincible's in particular. are healthy and exercising and doing all the right things. why do i need health insurance? reason anyone wants insurance whether it is homeowners insurance or any other insurance is because you can't predict the things that are going to happen in your life. god forbid todd has a major accident today or an illness. he's probably going to impoverish himself in terms of the cost. it is a concern.
what the affordable care act did was said we are no longer going to allow insurers to deny coverage or charge discriminatory premiums when people are sick. that means that obviously people who have health problems are going to go into the marketplace. that is what has happened. if on the other hand you don't have younger and healthier people join the marketplace what's going to happen to the premiums? they are going to go up. penalty wasof this to make sure that those people who might want to take a free ride and hope they will do ok attracts more people. it is the least popular part of the affordable care act to be sure. but it does help to make sure that the marketplace has a greater balance of risk pool. host: i will give you an a in arizona.
guest: it doesn't work. that's the problem. if the mandate really had teeth and it and people were seriously afraid not to buy insurance than we would have had a more balanced risk. guest: you would have wanted a larger find? guest: i would have wanted a more effective approach giving insurance companies the ability to sell insurance products that people actually want to buy at a price they are willing to pay. it has to be subsidized. na.t: let's hear from an caller: good morning. i'm a project manager at an insurance company who is a participant in the affordable care act in arizona. i have not had worse insurance in my life than i have being the affordable care act even working for an insurance company. what impact did the supreme court have when it -- it did a
couple of things early on. employers tothe put them off having to participate to a later time and they made some decisions about the states having to expand was supposed to be a part of this and many states were able to opt out of the expansion. what part did the supreme court play in those rulings that might have made the participation less profitable? she is raising a question about what happened with the first supreme court ruling. in that case what she is referring to is a part of that case was the court held that the affordable care act's requirement that every state expand medicaid program was impermissible under the constitution.
it converted what was a mandate to expand medicaid to a state option. most states like arizona have actually picked up on that option. 31 states plus the district of columbia have accepted this option. 19 states have not yet done so. arizona is a very interesting case. because the governor at the time, jan brewer, very conservative governor. she decided it was a good thing for the state of arizona to extend medicaid. she had all the local chambers of commerce say it's a good idea and it's going to be very helpful in terms of jobs. arizona opted into expanding medicaid. we still have 19 states that haven't done so. . host: did you want to jump in? guest: that is really the only
significant part of any of the supreme decisions that affected normal people. after the election i think we will see maybe all of the 19 states signing onto the medicaid expansion. especially if hillary clinton is cutted because she won't back the extra payment to states who do that. if it's not hillary clinton they may change their mind. host: we have about 30 minutes left. joseph antos and ron pollack are our guests. you are stepping down from that position. guest: i have been at families usa over 34 years. i think the organization could use some young leadership. we're in the midst of a search process and i'm going to move on. i'm not retired.
hoping to work in economic fairness beyond health care. host: we are talking about the health of the affordable care act. -- aca insert viewers insured viewers, bill is on the line for those who get their insurance through their employer. good morning. caller: when bill clinton became president, hillary tried to push through hillary care and republicans stopped it. becomes president you have a republican president andcongress and senate health care costs went up 140%. by 2008 it was $12,000 a year.
05-06 in one year. 140% --are has gone up has health care gone up 140% under obama? it didn't become an issue until ronald reagan and george bush senior became president because the republican congress about -- sold out the medical community to the insurance companies. not-for-profit hospitals and medical centers. au used to have to have medical license to own and operate a medical facility. no longer. now it is all owned by insurance companies. obamacare was so popular was because after you took 140% beating and republicans did nothing they were willing to do anything to stop that. then the employer was smart by dumped it on the
workers. this lady talked about how bad her health care is now. let me give our guests a chance to respond. clear about the national statistics. he may be talking about his personal circumstances in new york. nationally from the mid-90's to about 2003 the average growth rate in health spending was about 8% year. the average growth rate in the economy was close to 3%. we have seen that for decades. it is faster than we would like to see. then we have the great recession. everything slowed down. health spending slowed down. that happened before the aca.
a lot of people want to say the aca is fully responsible for the slowdown in health care spending. it's not really true. we are coming back up. it is a big challenge. even these numbers that seem smaller are very large when you translate it into people's taxes and premiums. do have a problem and unfortunately part of the aca was supposed to slow down health spending. that was something that was put interest of increasing coverage. host: ron pollack is shaking his head. a few things. bill was recounting some of the
history about health reform. it goes back well beyond that. wanted to pass major health reform and wanted to include as part of the social security act. the american medical association was strongly against it so he jettisoned it in order to protect the social security act. in 19 49.an tried again the american medical association opposed it. ronald reagan got some of his public start right being a spokesperson in opposition to health reform. right -- i like to tell joe he is right periodically. seenve clearly increases in costs that preceded the affordable care act and after. really interesting is
that even though the affordable care act did remarkable things about extending coverage to over 20 million people who didn't have health insurance we have our lowest rate of uninsured in the history of the country. at the same time one of the things we have learned, dhhs recently released data that shows in terms of the cost of health care that have really decelerated. are they where they should be? no. but they have decelerated. host: angelo gets his insurance through the affordable care act. good morning. good morning. i think something you are not touching on is for profit medicine should be not only illegal, it's immoral. i don't understand how a ceo and all of these people in the insurance business -- if it was up to me there would be no more
insurance companies. there would be medicaid for all, single-payer. it's that simple. why should you work your entire life and have one catastrophe come along and wipe out everything that you put away? it's completely absurd. i don't understand this. angelo's want to take comment. guest: he's right. everybody needs health insurance. we have to start from where we are. is a privateare insurance system and a private health care system as well. those who argue against for aofit misunderstand that not-for-profit status is a tax status but they still have to make money. and they do. blue cross plans are not-for-profit. end of the't at the
day make a substantial net gain over their expenses they will be out of business. aren't there cap's on how much the companies can make? guest: there are on how much of a premium dollar is spent on things other than providing care. it's called the medical laws ratio. to spend aty have least $.80 out of the dollar on actual provision of health care. theothers it's $.85 out of dollar. profitn't particularize but includes administrative costs marketing and advertising as well as profit. insurers are not happy about that. they would like to have no caps on things spent other than care. it does provide greater efficiency to make sure most of the premium dollar is actually
spent on care. guest: you have a different definition of efficiency than i do. among the several things in the 15% are patient management costs which i think most people in the especiallyuld agree for high-cost patients and people with chronic illnesses you need to be efficient to minimize the resources to produce a healthy patient. you need to have administrative costs. the patientsanage and the doctors. if you don't do that we're just going to blow through the money. guest: i agree. the question that preceded this was are there some caps on profit. i think in a capitalistic system anyone in the marketplace wants to make a profit. in terms of using taxpayer dollars effectively we don't
want our taxpayer dollars to go to insurance company profits. we want to make sure they go for good care. host: let's bring in a taxpayer from virginia. he gets his employer -- insurance through his employer. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i live in virginia and work in maryland in a number of paid clinics. i'm not an owner. i get my insurance through my employer. i wanted to make some comments about the fact that i know we are talking about providing insurance to everybody which is great. i think it's a really good thing. i have been involved with the ama. we have to find a way to pay for it. we pay into the hospital insurance trust for medicare is not going to cover all of those costs. the supplemental insurance is
still ok. with regards to obamacare i think a lot of the insurance companies are pulling out the markets because they are not making enough money or they are losing a lot of money. continue to go that way because there's a lot of sick people out there and they are a lot bigger and they are going to stay a lot sicker and stay in the system longer. i don't see a good solution for all of that. with regard to direct medical cost i think the lobbying interests involved in the health care including doctors and insurance companies and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies -- the pharmaceutical lobby is the strongest and they continue to churn out really big profit. they are taking the majority of the money. the weakest lobby is the doctors. host: let's talk about that. joseph antos. guest: anybody involved in
business in the united states lobbies congress. that is not a surprise. insurancedes companies and doctors. they are all lobbying. and pharmaceutical companies as well. runcription drug costs around 15% of national health pending. they're not getting the bulk of the money. the bulk of the money is going to hospitals. it's about 40% going to hospitals. it's really hard to say where the costs can be cut back but it's clear that the incentives in most hospitals have systems is fees for service. if you don't provide a service you don't get paid.
that is one of the fundamental issues. the way we pay everybody in the health system promotes the use of service is even when the services provide marginal usefulness. host: a couple of tweets. agreeing with ron pollack. aetna leaving the exchange is retaliation for the blocked merger with humana. a question. insurance companies complaining when the aca mandates that people must buy their product? guest: i don't think they are complaining so much about the mandate. i'm not saying it's a popular thing. surveys.ok at all the the mandate is least popular of all the different provisions.
insurers know that when they are prohibited from denying coverage to people who are sick or have a pre-existing condition they have to get healthier people into the pool. the mandate helps achieve that. joe raises a question is it done as effectively as possible. it could be improved. no doubt. part of important trying to make sure the pools don't have as much risk in them. let me say one other thing. this really goes to the future. those whowe've had are opponents of the affordable care act have really so far of used to seriously engage in trying to improve the affordable care act as if it's an act of sacrilege. i think when hillary gets elected assuming she does i think it's really important some of the things we can do to
improve these risk pools so we keep premiums down. here's an opportunity. for example the republicans really liked so-called medicare part d which is the prescription drug benefit in medicare. it has certain mechanisms designed to keep costs down. kindkes sure there is some of risk adjustment for those plans that have sicker people and they get some protection. so far republicans have not been willing to do that kind of adjustment to the affordable care act. my hope is that we can make those kinds of changes after the election. i am puzzled why the democrats didn't put that in the first place. they do have those mechanisms but some of them expire. that was the democratic decision not the republican one. guest: i look host: forward to your support of our extending them. we have 15 minutes --
host: we have 15 minutes left in the segment. waiting in fayetteville, arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. createsrdable care act adverse selection for insurance companies because people are sick and that's who's going to buy the policy. why not just have medicare for everyone? hillary clinton is proposing lowering the age to 55. medicare operates at the least expense ratio of any of the providers. that way everybody will be in the plan. we will be a big boy country. host: medicare for everyone. guest: medicare does not operate substantially less expensively than private insurance. one of the things people don't seem to understand is the medicare administrative cost
runs through the center for medicare services. the social security administration does the bulk of the work in signing people up for medicare. that's where you go. the social security office. is expensivee up and keeping track of who they are is expensive. medicare administers the building. they pay the bills but they don't have the rest of it. you also have to look at the ratio of administrative costs per dollar spent on benefits. a veryly you can get small percentage if you ignore many of the costs and then you say on a per person basis is very low. but the reality is that medicare people spend probably two or three times the money that operates through the private sector. it's not really true.
one other point about hillary's proposal. this is a great idea for the aca. 55will transfer sick people to 64 into some program which will simply have higher subsidies. if you really wanted to do this you could cut through that and just give higher subsidies to people's 55 to 64. host: ron pollack. guest: we have not called about the so-called public option. the public option which is more akin to what hillary is proposing is that for certain age groups they will have the option to buy into a public plan. i think that's a good idea. you are raising before that county in arizona. it would be a lot better for the people in that county if there was a public option so that if
no private insurer was willing to provide coverage that the affordable care act is not the rest of opportunities to provide coverage for folks. i think there is going to be a debate about the public option. i don't expect republicans to support that. perhaps there is a compromise. the compromise might be in those areas where there are precious that there be some opportunity to increase the options by having a public option. host: caller on the line for those who are uninsured. joseph in delaware. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm trying to figure out -- i keep hearing this 20 million people covered. what is the difference between coverage and care? there are so many doctors here in delaware who don't want anything to do with the aca and i take care of my 80-year-old mother who is not affected by that.
she's terrified by that. it doesn't really affect her. you are with aetna. you are good. i keep hearing this. no dr. in delaware will take aca. my mother calls it the bomber care.- bummer she's just waiting for her premiums to go up because no one is involved in it. i pay the extortion myself every year at tax time. would you like to comment on that? i think it's a sham. host: ron pollack was shaking his head. are lots of doctors accepting coverage through the plans and the affordable care act. joseph asked in the beginning about the 20 million. theree's referring to is
are over 20 million people who were uninsured prior to the affordable care act who now have health coverage. that's a remarkable achievement. we have the lowest rate of uninsured in the history of the country. patientsre accepting in the affordable care act. there is a more difficult issue with respect to the medicaid program. some places doctors are not accepting medicaid patients. medicaid enrollees are getting coverage and they are getting care. kentucky gets her insurance through the aca. good morning. caller: kentucky's plan is pretty good. the only reason i'm on it is i am disabled and in between -- i and nown employee plan
i'm ready to get on medicare. now thatike to say people are having to pay for insurance they are going out and seeking treatments that they might not have sought out before. they are using their insurance because they have to pay for it. another thing i have seen it is we need to get the media out of health care. i'm referring to the advertising. i have worked in health care my whole life and come from a long line of doctors. people see it on tv and they think they have to have it. a lot of these medications are very expensive. contribute tog health care costs, baby boomers
are getting older. i told rand paul that when he was here in town speaking. host: thanks for the topic. guest: mary is right. when you have insurance you are more likely to go to the doctor. that's a good thing. on the other hand there is the question of access. what the previous caller might have been referring to is it's my doctor i want to see. i don't want to see a doctor i haven't seen before. that's an issue. fact is you have to shop around and your doctor may not be in any of the aca plans. but some doctor will. her point about the population getting older, absolutely. this is something ron and i look forward to. the fact is health care costs are going to be rising much more rapidly as baby boomers age.
host: stephen in maryland gets his insurance through his employer. caller: just a couple comments. i think getting 20 million more people on health insurance is a good idea. i think a better idea would be provide 20 million jobs where people can get their employment through work. lunge toward be a socialism in this country. the government is not a provider. this is not liberty and the provision of happiness. this is the pursuit of happiness. i got a couple notes. i'm 65 and i have to write things down. $500 billion a year wasted in tobaccontry on alcohol jobs and obesity. we need to address that problem.
i got tri-care for life. i was in the military for 20 years. the reason we can't have a military program for everybody is because you have an seo and officer oversight. if you sham you are thrown out. i have heard it costs $10,000 to have a child. a lot of people think babies should be provided through social programs. people don't realize it takes $250,000 a year to raise that child. host: we got your point. i'm glad steve has gotten the benefit of tri-care. he's now going to get the benefit of medicare. we do want a safety net for people. we still have a private health insurance system for good or for bad. we want to make sure people don't fall through the cracks. between medicare and medicaid we take care of seniors, people
with disabilities, people who are too poor to get health insurance. thing. a good i hope we expand that coverage so everybody who needs care can actually gain access to it. host: our last call is from jack in minnesota. you are on the joseph antos and ron pollack. caller: good morning. i googled in my trusty ipad what the ceo of united health care makes. here's what i came up with. ceo stephenh care $66 million inme 2014. he took it in an eye watering
$102 million in 2010. corporateone of the hierarchy in that company that are taking home of seen amounts of money. physicianlaw who is a works his tail off and makes it can't even be called a fraction of the. he does the actual providing. i was a dentist. i also made a minute fraction of that. the reason is because the providers take a huge haircut to the parasitic insurers. takes the way the patient a big haircut to provide these bscene amounts of money.
the cost of all the paper shufflers to have to and eric a the labyrinthine idiocies of in thestem we have united states. it is rotten. it needs to be changed. there are better systems in the world. in europe they have better systems. they pay half the money we do and get better outcomes. host: that's jack in minnesota. 30 seconds each. jack has the belief that if you go to england you will get better care and it will be cheaper. it will get cheaper in terms of what you paid directly to health care but your taxes will be much higher. it's a very difficult calculation to make. as far as high corporate salaries are concerned, that's true. for majortrue hospital systems. look around. the doctors are not getting paid
millions of dollars. unless they own hospital systems. . that's true. i would say we are reaching a turning point in the turning after thehat sometime elections this debate about the affordable care act is going to come to an end. my friend joe is going to have an epiphany about working so that with democrats we can actually build on what the affordable care act has done , make it better. we who support the affordable care act will work with people like joe to strengthen the legislation in such a way that it really works for all americans all across country. you are right. i think the next administration if it is democratic will be a lot more amenable to coming up to the hill and talking to republicans. the: joseph antos is with american enterprise institute. ron pollack is with families usa.
the executive director. thanks so much to your both for your time this morning. next on washington journal we ,ill be joined by ira rheingold executive director of the national association of consumer advocates. he will discuss the consumer financial protection bureau's recent proposal to overhaul debt collection rules. that's coming up in just a minute on washington journal. ♪ sunday night on q&a. >> there is an average of one racial lynching a week in the south. was a brilliant psychological device to hold down a race. if you were black you are afraid this could happen to you. >> author lawrence lingard talks about his literary career including his latest work, the lynching. about the trial following the 1981 killing of 19-year-old
michael donald by the kkk in mobile alabama. >> michael was a teenager. he was trained to become a brick layer. the youngest of seven children. he is home with his mother. gives him a dollar for a pack of cigarettes. an old buick pulls up behind him. tiger knowles pulls out his pistol and orders him into the backseat of the car. he knows when he gets in the car what's going to happen. a black man in alabama, you know. >> sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. c-spancampaign 2016, continues on the road to the white house. >> we need serious leadership. >> we will make america great again. live coverage of the
presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. monday, september 26 is the first presidential debate. 4 vice, october presidential candidates debate at longwood university in virginia. 9, the secondober presidential debate. the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump takes place at the university of nevada las vegas. listen live on the free c-span radio app or watch anytime on-demand at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: the consumer financial protection bureau recently announced it is looking to institute new rules when it comes to debt collection practices. joining us to discuss what it
could mean for those who collect e is ira rheingold. naca.bout the we are an association of servicestorneys, legal attorneys, and private attorneys who exclusively represent consumers. our perspective it is of consumers who are being harassed by debt collectors and suffering from dead. looking at whether this will help protect consumers from the debt collection problems we have seen over the past decade. issuing some new proposed rules. what are the rules of the debt collection world right now? guest: there is a law called the fair debt collection practices
act. different states have different rules as well. that law was passed in 1977. one of the unique things when dodd frank passed, that law over the years has been adapted by courts. been adapted over the years and courts have interpreted that statute. the ftc had enforcement actionsiy and brought over the years that clarified it. when dodd frank was passed the was given authority that no other agency had before. the dual enforcement authority of the federal trade commission and to supervise debt collection which is a fascinating thing because no one has ever been inside those shops. and rulemaking authority. there has never been a public government entity that put meat on the bones of the fair
debt collection practices act. what would those rules look like? guest: it's important to talk about what they are trying to address. there are major issues around debt collection today. you can break it down into two pieces. the first is the collection of owe andt people don't the incredible prevail in's of lawsuits around this country around debt collection. state courts across this country, more suits are brought by debt collectors than any other. over the years what we have seen in those debt collection suits is people are being sued for the wrong amount of debt, the wrong person is being sued, and they
are being sued in a way where there is very limited information being used to bring those cases. cfpb gets more complaints about debt collection than anything else and a lot of those have to do with the collection of bad debt or unknown debt. what happens in those courtrooms is that if someone doesn't show up they immediately get a default judgment. it's a machine where you are churning cases. you bring 100 cases, 90 times people don't show up. you get a judgment against them. people show up, they negotiate. people show up with an attorney, the case gets dismissed. they are addressing the collection of debts that are not owed. is ourebt collection topic in this segment of washington journal. we want to hear your concerns. line for republicans, (202) 748-8001.
democrats, (202) 748-8000. s, (202) 748-8002. if you work in the debt collection industry, (202) 748-8003. cfpb onts from the their website. the debt collection industry is a $13.7 billion a year industry. one in three consumers were contacted by a creditor or collector within the past year. 250,000 debtled collection complaints. about 85,000 in 2015 alone. we are going through what the cfpb proposed. what reaction are we seeing from the debt collection industry? guest: i can't speak for the debt collection industry. i would never attempt to.
i think they are unhappy for the most part. there have never been rules in place. they will feel in some ways stifled by the rules. one is the collection of debt that is wrong and the lack of information. the other is the nature of how debt collectors contact. the letters they write and phone calls they make. they are putting rules in place in terms of when they can call and how many times. the debt collection industry is not particularly happy with some of the requirements now in place. the: here is ceo of collection of credit professionals. he said the debt collection industry is already one of the most regulated industries in the united states. he says placing additional burdens on law-abiding businesses that do their utmost to provide -- comply with laws does nothing to stop scammers.
the outliers will continue to ignore the law while legitimate debt collectors will be put further at risk. guest: that's a beautiful statement. there's not much of it i agree with. if you take a look at the enforcement actions -- take one step back. some advocates are not particularly happy with this role either. has brought major enforcement actions against the biggest players in the debt collection industry. we are not talking about little scam shops based out of buffalo. which is where a lot of them are based. host: why is that? guest: it's an industry that grew up in buffalo. for some reason a lot of jobs got created there. a lot of debt collectors moved there. the worst behavior we see comes from debt collectors out of buffalo. a mortgage company came
from irvine, california we already knew there was a problem. when a debt collector is based out of buffalo we know there is a problem. the cfpb has gone after the in the industry for their behavior. the notion that the rules are necessary -- the rules are unnecessary on the behavior of the largest players in the debt collection has been pretty abhorrent overtime is pretty absurd. host: what specific kind of debt doesn't apply to? guest: any kind of consumer debt. if it's a consumer debt it applies. student loans, credit card debt. medical debt. any kind of debt that consumers gain through interaction with a company. host: first on this discussion andt debt collection changes to the industry coming through the cfpb, tori is in
upper marlboro, maryland. caller: my question is in regards to student loans. my husband and i are both products of going to school. we have student loan debt and we are still paying that off. he had a lot more private loans. he was given a court notice that he had to go to court to pay off the student loan debt. it's not like we really have the money to even pay it. he didn't have a choice. we have gone to an attorney hoping they can work on lowering the debt. i'm just wondering how does that work with the new regulations? is it going to be more beneficial who do owe? issue ise student loan in some ways separate from the whole debt collection industry because student loans are treated differently.
student loan debt is not discharged in bankruptcy. it is something that never goes away. there are programs available for people who have student loans to get that debt consolidated. consolidated and you may want to take a look at figuring out how you can lower the amount of payments you have through some federal consolidation program. -- i am glad you sought out an attorney, but a lot of the cases that are brought understood loans are for fees that are inappropriate, for debt that is wrong, the calculation may be wrong, or the amount of debt may not be correct and the information necessary to bring your court case -- the debt collector does not have. look at yourake a records and make sure you have an idea of what you oh. there may be some opportunities to consolidate some of that debt to lower your payments, and you also need to fight the lawsuit because there is a chance you may not even oh the money. host: if you have questions
about debt and debt collection practices, our guest is the man to ask. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. , (202)-748-8002. if you are in the debt collection industry, we would also like to hear from you, (202)-748-8003. cap collector contact attempts and ensure collectors have proper information. you say there is not a lot of meat to those.
guest: it sounds good and we are being supportive. in terms of the context, of this rule, we don't think they have done a good job. the broad statement overlays are fine but when you get into the details, they don't work well. when they talk about having real information or fannie -- fair information to move forward, the requirements aren't suspicion. that collectors to do is to see the original contract and take a look at the original debt to actually have proof that this is money that is owed. one of the problems we have had over time, the way that debt is sold in these gigantic packages of money, and there is just the electronic streams of data and a debt buyer will purchase an
electronic amount of money that says person x owes us this amount of money. there is no original contract or constellation how much that debt is actually owed, which has led to these countless mistakes and the cft be should require that a debt collector should have real proof that the debt is owed. host: how often does that get sold off versus the original person trying to collect? guest: take a step back. rule we are talking about now only apply to third-party debt collectors. if youre a creditor, only bank money, that of these rules apply. -- what information they have to have to collect. what we are talking about are either agents of that original creditor and what information they need to have.
typically they would have more information. or, we are talking about people who buy that debt. deck get sold to one debt collector. it gets sold to another, and again and sold and sold and ultimately, at the end of that chain, the information gets worse and worse. the question is, when you are attempting to collect the debt, how much should that debt collector have and we are arguing they should have the information -- original information. they may have the wrong person, there may be an interest rate that you not be charged. if they have the right person, they may owed the debt, but the amount of money they are claiming may be wrong. host: roberta is waiting in ohio, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. when a debt is reported to the
credit bureau, why, after 30 days other companies pick up on the debt, something like what he just spoke on. there are numerous companies, that will have your information, have added on their fees and they are all listed as a debt. instead of the one debt, now you have six of the same, that is being put on you, and you are being lowered with your credit score. even if you want to pay one of them off, how do you go about getting this resolved without having to pay someone to represent you? is, icond question forgot. to host: that's ok. guest: what you raise is a really important issue for consumers. this is actually a separate
rulemaking that the cftb is going to have to take on. they have authority around what is called the fair debt collection practices act. they also have authority over a law called the fair credit reporting act. what can be reported to a credit bureau, and how you can dispute it and you discover that the information is correct. sometimes the same debt is listed under different owners. the challenge is how do you get that bad information removed? there is a process consumers can take to dispute the debt. in many cases, the process is broken. the most common ways that collectors attempt to collect debt is simply by what we call parking the debt on your credit report. when people go to borrow more money and suddenly this debt pops out that they don't know
about, they simply pay it off because they're trying to get a loan. when the mortgage crisis existed and people were refinancing houses, this was a great way for debt collectors to collect money. when you went to get your mortgage from a subprime lender, they said you would have to pay off the debt on your credit report, so that debt will get white -- went away. carolina, dd is a republican. would you deal with sprint or t-mobile when they say you have old debt, and it is not accurate debt, and anyone a sit there and try to get it cleared up, but then they say that they sell it to a collection agency but because they are in the philippines or something like that, they are not actually telling you where it's originating from, because one moment they are telling you it
, and another is telling you it is there, but they will not tell you where it is. you are describing the cup of debt consistently being resold. one of the sources of debt is telecom debt, your phone debt. one of the problems is what happens with debt, there have been hold that whole books written about the life of debt -- whole books written about the life of a debt. just because it has been charged off, does not mean you don't oh it but at some point, they will simply sell it on and not keep close track of it. host: good one of those companies be overseas? guest: oh yes. people who get debt collection calls from all over the place
and it is sort of an extension of where they do business. when this gets automated, a lot of calls will come from india. they are sent all over the place. a lot of the credit reporting disputes, 60 minutes did a whole piece on it. investigations in chile. a lot of this stuff is being exported. host: leroy is a democrat. caller: thank you for answering my phone call. i have a situation where my daughter bought a house in 2007 at the top of the market. then the market crashed, her house went underwater and she is still paying a mortgage. she could not keep up with it and she went into debt. i tried to keep on top of her bills, and i put some of my -- some stuff on my credit card. my credit card over five years maxed out. as soon as my credit cards were near the max out, payday lenders
started calling me almost once or twice a week to see if they could solve my problem. how are they able to get my medit account and then offer a buyout at like 25%? how do they get away with that? -- i wish this an area you described was unique to you, but i have heard it time and time again. family members trying to help each other out winding up with an a norm is not in of debt, digging a deeper and deeper hole. we all feel a moral responsibility to pay the debt that we oh, but there is a point in time where you are just going bad money. one of the things consumers in america don't completely understand is there is a real risk and danger and our
financial information is not remotely private. we talk about credit reports. that information is being bought and sold and chopped up. when you get a solicitation at home for a credit card company offering you some deal, it's because they have collected information about you and understand where you fit in terms of the credit offer scale. in your situation because they saw all of this debt, that information had been sold to they canay lender and say this is a right customer who has been ours amounts of debt -- enormous amounts of debt. a question, can debt be inherited? if so, why wouldn't this be considered odious debt? guest: there is a long answer and a short answer. the debt would carry with the
estate, you certainly can't inherent debt. if my father passed away and had debt, i would not of his debt, unless i somehow cosign on it. now if there is a mortgage on the house and you get the house and mortgage debt would obviously flow with the estate and the estate would have to pay it off. once that person dies, that debt would not flow. the estate might have to pay it off, but you personally would not have any obligation. taking your debt collection questions. we would like to hear from those who work for the debt collection industry, (202)-748-8003. doug in new york, an independent. caller: i was in the mortgage business for a long time. i saw a lot of credit reports. the problem is that the rating companies really don't care.
the consumer does not pay the bills, they do not offer any profit. all they care about is people that buy their packages. when you call into a rating company, it is difficult because they have no leverage. i'm not even sure why the rating companies -- i don't think they care about being too accurate, only to the extent that their customers perceive them to be accurate. one quick comment about the earlier caller. when i was in the market business -- mortgage business. credit companies by: report -- credit reports and they start off -- the rating companies with sell that back.
they would sell it to the other credit companies. so my customer will get phone calls out of the blue from other mortgage brokerage -- mortgage brokers because the rating companies selling the fact that a mortgage company pulled the credit report. and therofit center consumer loses. there is a lot to unpack, there. there is a whole big scandal involving credit agencies, but we won't get into that. one of the interesting things that happened with dodd frank was at the federal government passed a law when it comes to making loans and created an absurd thatt seems up until dodd frank, people could make loans to you whether or not you could repay it.
the marketplace was interested in your loan because it would get sold and resold and result many times over. their business was not the consumer, they were just creating packages. in terms of credit reporting agencies, the customer is not the consumer. it's hard for the consumer to dispute a credit reporting agency. they are people -- their customers are people who are subscribers to them. a mortgageply for loan, everybody else in the universe gets notice that you are attempting to do it and they know who to solicit. there are some real problems with the credit reporting agencies and that is something else the cftb is going to have to take over. they have enforcement authority and they expect to have rulemaking around the fair -- credit fair reporting act. host: barbara is next. caller: last week, i got a call
from a debt collector for a student loan and i said what? i have never taken out a student loan. when was this taken out and what was the name of the school and he would not give me the answer. should i be afraid or how can i look into this? guest: a couple of things you should do, because i was the stories that you were telling me with surprise or shocked me, but i hear stories like this time and time again. one thing to do is, if they send you a notice, send them a letter asking them to prove that this -- that who the debt is from and show you proof that you in fact of it. send them a certified letter to show that you made a claim. you should take a look at your credit report. annualcrediebsite,
treport.com. one specific site where people are entitled once a year to get there credit report. look at your report and see what debts you oh, there. if in fact they bring a case against you, even though you don't own that money, even though you never attended a school, do not ignore a lawsuit filed against you. if you ignore it, judgment will be entered. court,don't show up in the debt collector may have limited or no proof, but the judges are overwhelmed with these cases. they just rubberstamp them and a judgment will be rendered. get a lawsuit against you, seek help and don't just sit by and say i don't know this money and let it pass. host: janice is next, a democrat. caller: i'm actually a republican. it does not matter for the purpose of this call.
mine is similar to the last woman. i have had the same -- same phone number for 40 years and in the last five years, i have been getting collection calls for a certain person with my last name but i have never heard of. i don't know how to make them stop. , telling them to tick me off your list, i don't know who that is and they say they are sorry but they don't take it off. i got one the other day and they said if you want to talk -- talk to us, call us back at this number. i know they have a hard time of it, but i don't care, it's not my problem. what can i do to make them stop? guest: i would tell them to stop and put it in writing and write a letter saying do not call me. that may or may not make it go away. file a complaint with your state attorney general's office and also with the cftb.
ag offices get more complaints a run deck collection than anything else. -- around at collection than anything else -- debt collection than anything else. they may stop calling you. they are required to stop calling you when you tell them not to call you anymore. that is under the fair debt collection practices act. the problem is that collector may sell that debt to another collector and back collector will start calling you and you will have to do the process again. under the cftb rule, they will hopefully creative process where a dispute can travel long so that if a debt collector buys a debt, they know it is being disputed. there was a process by which you can dispute those debts. filing a claim with the cftb is pretty useful, and with your ag is always useful.
host: taking your stories and questions about that collection and with a special line for those who work in the debt collection industry, (202)-748-8003. jenny is on that line in new york. caller: good morning. attorney and we thatally go after collectors who are violating the fair debt practices act. in new york state, it is illegal to collect on a payday loan. consumers are unaware of violations. they get letters they don't see like a 30 day verification notice or missing certain language, there are threats to their credit, things that they on't realize our violations,
the other end of the spectrum, i noticed there are people who get onvantage and try to , with debtith people collectors and try to get them to violate and say that they have to send a letter, when a verbal dispute is perfectly ok. i've noticed a lot of people taking advantage of fdcpa. guest: jenny is describing a situation where we -- where she works for an attorney that protects consumers against debt collection. you have to take a pullback. owele who odette -- who debt. we feel a moral obligation that we want to be able to pay it.
when you get a call from somebody, you try to respond accordingly. that boehner ability allows debt collectors to take advantage of them. they collect debts that are not owed or they ask for money that is not owed. with thehave disputes cftb, there is lots of good information consumers can see in terms of what their rights are when a debt collector calls them. people who are suffering from debt, but you are not alone. there are a lot of people like you and there are resources ifilable that can help you you are the subject of harassment. ift: about 10 minutes left you have questions about deck collection, stories about the industry. ryan is in massachusetts, an independent. i have advice for all
those people wearing about people calling them. it caller id that you don't recognize the number, don't answer it. that solves that problem. my question is, if the government raises the interest , how much will the debt go if it does go up, wouldn't it be fair that all the people who benefited and all the companies who benefited from borrowing trillions of dollars out of thin air pay that interest? one thing i will point out is this issue is not partisan. when you oh debt, you are not identified your political affiliation and people from all across the spectrum are being harassed. it really does not relate to consumer debt in particular.
if a debt collector is coming after you for a debt you owed previously. interest rate they are allowed to charge is based on what that contract allowed. you signed a contract that said you have an interest rate and it may say what it penalties, but the red raising interest rate will not have an impact on the debt that you go. it may impact your ability to get future credit cards or mortgages, but old debt, it should have no impact. host: susan in wisconsin, independent. caller: i just wanted to make a one of theoints, things that drives me absolutely crazy is with regard to the interest rate. the big banks, they are buying and selling debt to each other, they are getting money for near 0%. not very many people's credit card rates have gone down in the last eight years and not very many people -- there are people
having to go to court and they are losing their homes because of huge medical prices. reason, it is hard not to get political because the -- republicans have thrown out. and it isodd frank not a bad thing for regular people. regular people is what this attorney is representing and trying to help us have a chance against the big banks, the people that are charging us 25%, which is outrageous for people that hardly have any money in the checkbook to start. thank you for listening. guest: there is a lot, there. one is the amount of debt in this country remains enormous. we talk about people struggling and not having enough income and part of it is you have this overhang that people
are suffering from, and we need to have public policy deal with some of that debt. i think some of the things the cftb has been helping with. the cftb isssue is designed to protect consumers. dodd frank was passed for a real reason. the economy was collapsing because of the degree that consumer debt was being given out in inappropriate ways. attacks on dodd frank are particularly cynical. that law was passed because the debt collection industry, the mortgage industry, they had gone unregulated for too long, and that was created to protect consumers. does it do a perfect job? no, that is why we are pushing them to do better. the attacks are political. host: let's go to darrell in alabama, independent.
alone -- a loan. it was a 72 month loan. the price was $39,000. when you look at the document that i signed, there was a $10,000 interest that is not even show in my credit report. years, i the now, four have zero credit score. i have had to go to master charge and i got a little credit card and now i have a whopping $300 like going to the store for 10 minutes. i have tocase where get a credit card to build a credit score, and yet i have a substantial amount of money in the bank. i have been trying to buy a bank and i run into these credit score stories.
how come we have reached the point in this nation where nobody trusts anybody, any more? if you don't have a good lawyer and a good mechanic next year, you will be in a world of hurt. for knowing that somebody out there knows what is going on. guest: he makes a really important point. this crazy thing exists in our country. to be able to borrow money at a good rate, you have to have previously borrowed money. if you are not engaged in the credit economy, you won't be able to get good credit. building your credit score becomes very important and credit reports are so ubiquitous , we are being judged by our financial prowess all the time. it has created a real skewing. people on poor are low income with jobs that don't pay a whole have a lot of credit, credit becomes that much more expensive.
poor, theyple are can get credit or if they get it, it is even more expensive. the short answer is it is expensive to be poor and if you want to borrow good credit, then you have to borrow it ahead of time. host: let's try to get bernadette in new mexico. good morning. caller: good morning. underlyingon, the culprits are the credit reporting agencies. too much credibility is on those agencies. i went to a department store and made a few purchases. i was told we cannot accept this car because you have been reported as deceased. as you can tell, i am very much alive. is, it was experience and i asked -- i had the right to find out which credit report -- which credit agency reported
me -- they refused to give me the information. i have had a heck of a lot of problems ever since. the bottom line is, who monitors these agencies? those are the main culprits. answer is thert credit reporting agencies, have a lot of the problems -- having a lot of problems. the fact that they reported you deceased was not surprising. the cftb was created in order to supervise, enforce and do rulemaking around the credit reporting agencies and over the next coming year, they will issue strong rules to protect people like bernadette. host: director of the national association of consumer advocates. consumeradvocates.org. we appreciate your time on the washington journal.
coming up, our last half hour, it's open phones. they will talk about any public policy issue you want to talk about what your thoughts on the news of the day or some topics we covered. you can start calling in and we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv airs on c-span3 every weekend, telling the american story through events, interviews and visits to historic locations. prime time we are in to introduce you to programs you could see every weekend on c-span3. our features include visits to college classrooms across the country to hear lectures by top history professors. american artifacts these look at the treasures of u.s. historic sites and archives.
the civil war, where you hear about people who shaped the civil war and reconstruction. the presidency focuses on u.s. presidents and first ladies to learn about their politics, lessees and legacies. every weekend on american history tv on c-span3. throughout this month, we are showing book tv programs during the week in primetime. book tv on c-span2 takes our public affairs programming and focuses on the latest nonfiction book releases through author interviews and book discussions. programs are in-depth, a live three-hour look at one author's work with questions from viewers. in-depth airs the first sunday of every month at noon eastern. afterword is a discussion with a new author of a released nonfiction book and someone
familiar with the topic, and often with an opposing viewpoint. we will take you across the country, visiting book testicles and book parties, where authors talk about the latest works. book tv is the only national network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books. >> washington journal continues. host: open phones in our last half hour. today, you can start calling in on any public policy issue that you want to talk about. lines for republicans, democrats and independents as usual. president obama is heading to baton rouge today to see the historic damage from the flooding, there. at least 13 people are dead and thousands more displaced. more than 110,000 households have applied for federal recovery assistance.
also coming up at about 10:00, jill stein will -- the green party candidate for president will be at the national -- will be talking about the flooding and will be talking about recovery as -- efforts and climate change and the national press club will be covering that at 10:00, after our program. until then, it is open phones. it ising to note is that seven days until congressional primaries take place in arizona and florida. to talk more about that, we bring in politico reporter. the key race everyone is watching, at least the one getting the most attention is the senate race in florida. can you talk about what is daysning in the last seven of that contest and marco rubio holding onto his seat? we have the florida
senate primaries in seven days. --co rubio should have should have no trouble winning the -- republican nomination. the reason people may have initially thought he may have because hisble is opponent is very rich, self funding his campaign. he has never really gotten any traction. perform rubio decided to jump back in, he was in a five way primary with four other republicans who seemed to have an edge, but rubio for a much not all of the other ones out of water -- out of the water. senator rubio has shown a major ability to fund raise. his polling numbers are good, despite the potential donald trump effect in florida. we expect him to be the time -- the nominee. on the democratic side, it is more interesting but the outcome is not really in doubt on the democratic side. we have congressman pastor
murphy, a young house democrat competing against alan grayson, and congressman murphy has been one backed by senate democrats. the democrat senatorial campaign committee, vice president biden, president obama. -- he had a domestic abuse allegation leveled against him by his now ex-wife. he clearly has some baggage and we expect murphy to be the nominee in that race. once we had to the general election season, the murphy rubio matchup will be one of the closest watched in the nation for this election season. host: incumbents running for reelection have done well in the primaries so far. any possibilities of incumbents losing their seats in florida or arizona? incumbents have done very
well in primaries, this season. in the house, there is only one who has lost his seat because of a reason that was nominated to redistricting for an indictment that was a congressman from kansas. in arizona, which also has primaries next week, we're looking at the primary of john mccain. they are for -- he does have a primary challenger, a state senator, nancy kelly ward. he takes every campaign, he takes is one seriously, but he is expected to meet her pretty resoundingly, next tuesday. he has 10 million in the bank or's wards $1 million. she has not gotten a lot of traction with the outside conservative groups.
what the last week of the campaign hold. kelly ward has gotten endorsements from members of congress, particularly john -- thomas massie of kentucky. otherwise, senator mccain is expected to win his primary and he will go up against ann kirkpatrick, a democrat from the first district. mounting concern among republicans about whether the house is in play or not. politico had a story, yesterday about a new super pac launching a $10 million effort to protect the house gop. that is a super pac that is closely alive with the house republican leadership and they coming in much earlier than
the generally wood, targeting the districts that are really in play, and that does underscore concern that is coming from the top corners of the republican party that the house could be in play. when you before the rise of donald trump that the senate majority was going to be in playing a matter who the nominee -- considering the house for a wild and not really seem to be in doubt and i think at this point, republicans still do have a very good chance of keeping the house, but you definitely see concerns that donald trump could drag down the senate races, the house races. republicans would have to lose 30 seats to lose the majority, which is going to be a pretty tall order. you see the worries coming. you was interesting is that have powerful republicans state on the record that we should divert resources to the down ballot races.
who hasrizona senator been a very vocal critic of donald trump and said in an interview, over the weekend, about donaldrget trump and put our resources and our time and money and effort into saving the senate and house majority. always appreciate you walking us through the latest. we will check back in, later in the cycle. it is open phones on the washington journal. we will get right to it. independent.yland, up until reality set in, -- donald trump became a scumbag with all of this foolishness of his primaries. as an independent
african-american, i totally reject his bullying of black people to vote for him. for lawn order was the last straw for me and that was months ago. this man who promised to pay the legal bills of those people in his rallies if they would attack other americans. this is not lawn order. host: what is an example of the bullying? caller: what do you have to lose? that is not language of the presidential hopeful to mock people. if he gets 5%, he will be lucky. there are black people who embrace the fears that he is promoting. another example of his bullying is now pictures of hillary that are not real.
the language that he uses, the town that he uses is a bullying town and is not conducive to garnering any black support, and i hope it does not go beyond 5%. int: let's go to hal nebraska, democrat. caller: i'm got something that has been bugging me for a while. aid to a country with 11 million people. yearve them $47 billion a in military aid and economic assistance, which work out -- works out to about $500 per person. host: what country are we talking about? caller: i'm talking about israel. ofy create a great deal animosity with the surrounding people in the region.
we did nothing to the palestinians and i think it makes us look bad, and it think it is unfair to the american taxpayers because i don't know of any -- i don't get a $500 check. i don't know anybody that does. host: joe is in south carolina, independent. morning.ood veteran of the iraq war. my wife has been on two sides of the obamacare health care. about twost side, years ago, we moved to south carolina from new york. she did not have insurance, so when obamacare kicked in, and
that helped her, and they found out she had type 2 diabetes. then she got her medicine and everything. after a went to work year and a half, she finally got a job and now she is a district manager of a gas station down here. is way too much for her to pay. the penalty to pay at the end of the year. that's ok, because it did help -- help her find out that she had her problem and now she can get the medicine. but youto pay for it, can get her medicine and she knows she can go to the doctor and he can keep are updated on everything, that we have to pay a little money for it. subsidiesany of those
-- those who are uninsured or those who can't pay for it, do any of those subsidies apply to you? caller: --? atler: the thing is, yeah, first. now, they don't. at least we found out that she had a problem. when we were in new york, she retired down i there. working andontinue she finally found a job. now we are just going to have to pay the penalty because it is too expensive because it is like
a hundred dollars a month for us to pay for insurance. host: stacy is in virginia, independent. caller: thank you for having me. your callers touched on so many issues. these drug commercials that are on tv. the fact that the american people, we are paying for these drug companies to advertise on tv with loopholes and tax cuts, yet we don't have money to fix our roads or fix our infrastructure, and we are sending money overseas. my question is, what are we doing to protect the american people from our own policies? our policies are killing americans and all a person has to do is give a politician some
money, and they will push forth these poison policies with drugs that we have on tv. kill more people than isis. they are not pulled off the air. if i get a hole in my tire or my cookie go is raw, they will pulled the all -- all that off the market, but you won't pull a poison drug off the market. host: what drugs are you talking about? that is one of, the drugs that killed my fiancee in 30 days after his doctor gave him a free sample for stress. these drugs have the same chemical effect as a pcp or bath salts and they are giving this stuff to kids as young as 18 months old. that in itself should be a crime.
greed is killing us, literally. host: robert is in new york, a democrat. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about benghazi, and i got something that is hard to say because i hate to blame the victims, but i think ambassador stevens there is some responsibility. if i was in a job where i thought my life was at risk in my employees were at risk, and repeated attempts to get security were denied, i would have threatened to resign and told my employees to get out of there. it is hard to blend the victims, but i think ambassador stevens could have done more to protect himself. host: cindy is in ohio, line for independents. caller: good morning. i hope i can keep myself together.
all these things going on with the elections, and it just seems to take everybody's mind off issues that are going on out here. everyone is so focused on the elections, nobody is talking about issues. one of mine is i have had a doctor, a friend of mine had the same doctor for 40 years. she has gone into the concierge theor stuff because paperwork the government is too much for her to handle, she can deal with all the patience anymore -- patients anymore. now the dea have got their fingers in the mess, because of all these governors putting out against the drugs. i understand the fight, but right now, if washington journal , which i did call in about it, would investigate this mess, there are a lot of people who have been taken off painkillers that are in chronic pain and
they have all been locked up in this whole mess and we are all doing without, people dying of cancer, they say no they don't get the pills, they die looking for pills to relieve their pain. veterans who have been messed up in the war can't get their painkillers. fibromyalgia or back problems with rods in them, they can't get pain medicine anymore and this needs to be getting out there. you need to have people on their to answer to us why they are making us live like this. why are they making us live -- they came in like to stop those and stopped everything. why are the american politicians killing their own people? host: we have done several programs about opioids and painkillers. i encourage you to go back and look through some of those segments, but it is something that continues to be an issue and we will continue to cover it. roy is in kansas, republican.
are you with us? caller: good morning. i would like to hear an honest answer, yes or no from mr. obama and hillary clinton on one simple question. that question is do you understand these rights have they been explained to you? thank you for your program. host: clyde is in minnesota, independent. caller: thank you for letting me on and good morning. i have a message. the debt is global in its spectrum. people -- you are just an individual that works for somebody or you have a small business or you are the leader of a country or a doctor, a politician or whatever you are, until we have raising -- until
we raise ourselves to a higher moral responsibility and understand what truth and honesty really is, in this world, not in this country or in our -- a ripple effect of our social construct and we start telling the truth and are honest to our , toow man, to our leaders our doctors and politicians, our businessmen, until we do this, there is going to be a total disarray of just overlapping, revolving -- a lot of just -- host: how optimistic are you that that day will come? i'm not optimistic that it's going to happen anytime soon. it has not happened since the beginning of time, but people need to think about what they do and what they say and how it affects other people.
that applies to everything in life, and that is my message because if we were more honest and truthful, a lot of things would be a lot easier to deal with. they would make more sense. we could have trust in our fellow man and in our leaders and business involvements. we need to try to raise ourselves to a higher moral standard. host: republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. larry is next, independent. caller: good morning america. i would like to touch on a subject of bill and hillary clinton and the blacks of america.
when bill clinton was in office -- i am a disabled veteran from vietnam. 's,n i used to go to the va down the isles and things everything said made in america. there, a clinton got couple of years later, it said everything was made in china. was in as clinton president, he actually sold part of the west coast to the chinese . host: are you talking about trade deals? caller: yes. if i were the blacks, while bill it seemeds in there, like half of india started showing up in america, running
all of the jiffy stores, owning it just pushed a lot of people completely out of work. host: we will go to marry in tennessee, line for democrats. hello host: -- please turn your tv down. caller: my husband is a veteran. i grew up with the democratic party, because they weren't liberal, and now that is all you hear. one of the things about this election that i'm worried about, we have a government house we bought for 1 -- 45 thousand dollars and we still of $58,000 on it, and the payments are so high, we cannot deal with them. host: what is a government house? caller: a federal government fha.
it is a subsidy on your payment each month, but we are maxed out to where our payments are 666 a month -- $666 a month. i say to the democratic and republican party, would you be able to help people like us? tothe government going change anything like that? is the election going to help people that really need it? host: do you see any hope from either of the candidates your situation? caller: we are looking at donald trump because he seems to know or seems to believe that he will be able to change things. hillary, i would love to be in there because being a woman myself but, you have to go with what they are saying they might be able to do and there is no guarantee until they did in there. congress are in, the ones that get the doing.
i have always been a voter. texas, a is in beautiful gift -- a republican. i wanted to talk a little bit about the reason that things are the way they are with regulations and everything. that one caller you had a little bit ago was talking about why we don't do anything. thatusly the reason regulations that things are the way they are is because for the last seven and a half years, we had a democratic president, and we had gridlock in washington. i feel that the only way that we can do anything about this is to change our leadership in the only way we can do that is through a vote. everybody should do that.
you want change? you have to vote for change. you can't just keep doing the same thing and expecting something different. host: is that the best selling point for donald trump's presidency? caller: i think it is. the fact that he wants to make changes in the way we do things in the government is an absolute winner with me. whould think that people want change of sorts, you should consider that. he has had his ups and downs with the things he says, but look at the last seven and a half years. the people are poor, in the inner cities. poor blacks, poor whites, poor latinos. they all worry about what donald trump says and how he says it. it's not important how he says it, it's important about what he does, what he is going to try to
do. florida, -- i'm sorry, we will go to dave in virginia. line for democrats. caller: you had a caller a few minutes ago who made the claim that israel receives $47 billion, and that each of it -- each of its 11 million people would get five dollars -- $500. the guys math is wrong. the that his political claim is wrong, it's about $3 million, maybe a little bit more. that man should get his information from other sources than right wing and white extremist sites. do what we can for fact checking as we go through the calls. wayne is in arkansas, public and. -- republican. caller: my comment is, i am
amazed that i see no public memorials in our capital or elsewhere the george mitchell. you say who is george mitchell. george mitchell is a geologist from a small company around houston who invented the process of fracking. the discovery of this completely discredited the idea of peak oil. the idea that all of it was discovered and there was no more. he turned the economy of the united states upside down. our balance of payments upside down, revolutionizing our economy and you don't see a word. not a word can sing -- concerning george mitchell. there ought to be a monument to him in the middle of washington
mall. bonnie in ohio. this.: my comment is trump cano think that change and turn america around. i would urge people to see hillary's america. i don't want to give a commercial. it's a wonderful movie that really shows us not just hillary and bill clinton but how the democratic party from way back when really impacted some terrible things in our country including slavery. toould just urge people please go see that movie. i know people in hillary's corner probably won't.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive The Chin Grimes TV News Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on