tv PBS News Hour PBS January 18, 2011 6:00pm-7:00pm EST
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. house republicans launched their effort to repeal the health care reform law. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. on the newshour tonight, betty ann bowser covers today's debate, and judy woodruff talks to new york democrat anthony weiner and california republican dan lungren. >> lehrer: then, as chinese president hu jintao arrives for a state visit, paul solman explores the pressure on china to revalue its currency. >> ifill: and from seoul, margaret warner gets south korean views on whether china
can be persuaded to rein in north korea. >> they want obama to persuade president hu that china needs to pressure north korea to act more responsibly vis-a-vis south korea. >> lehrer: we examine what's next for apple, as c.e.o. steve jobs takes another medical leave. that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> okay, listen. somebody has got to get serious. >> i think... >> we need renewable energy. >> ...renewable energy is vital to our planet. >> you hear about alternatives, right? wind, solar, algae... >> i think it's going to work an a big scale. only, i think it's going to be affordable. >> so where are they? >> it has to work in the real world. at chevron, we're investing millions in solar and biofuel technology to make it work. >> we've got to get on this now. >> right now.
>> for three hours a week, i'm a coach, but when i was diagnosed with prostate cancer, i needed a coach. our doctor was great, but with so many tough decisions, i felt lost. united healthcare offered a specially trained r.n., who helped us weigh and understand all our options. for me, cancer was as scary as a fastball is to some of these kids, but my coach had hit that pitch before. >> turning data into useful answers. we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. united healthcare. >> bnsf railway. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.
>> lehrer: the u.s. house took up repeal of the health care reform law today. newshour health correspondent betty ann bowser begins our coverage. >> mr. speaker i rise to support hr-2 the repeal of last year's so-called health bill. >> reporter: for house republicans it marked a moment to make good on a promise that helped fuel their election victories last fall. >> we said we would have a straight up or down vote to repeal this health care law. that is precisely what we are doing here today. >> reporter: for democrats on both sides of the capital, it was the new opportunity to win public support for the law. >> we welcome in a certain sense their attempt to repeal it because it gives us a second chance to make a first impression. >> reporter: since president obama signed the law last march, several key elements have already taken effect. including popular provisions
like allowing adult children to stay on their parents' insurance until they turn 26. offering prescription discounts for seniors. and insuring children with pre-existing conditions. on the other hand, a number of states are suing over the mandate for most americans to get health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a fine. to repeal the health care law, the debate was supposed to take place last week. but after democratic congresswoman gabrielle giffords was wounded in tucson the republican leadership postponed it until today. and as the debate got underway, both sides of the aisle were paying particular attention to tone. the two sides also mounted full blown public relations campaigns to get their messages across. with dueling press conferences, blog posts, interviews, hearings, and even full-page ads. >> i'm a signature on this
repeal it now document. because as citizen jeff duncan i signed that i did not want obama care. as congressman jeff duncan i look forward to work ing with the guys behind me following their leadership, repealing this very unconstitutional piece of legislation and replacing it with something that is better. we're going to work on that together. >> reporter: republicans said the law is too costly. they warned 650,000 jobs will be lost if it's allowed to stand. they cited a letter written by 200 economists who argued the health care law is a threat to u.s. businesses and will place a crushing debt burden on future generations of americans. >> what the health care bill does is create such uncertainty, both in taxation and in regulation, that the job market is frozen shut right now. it is with baby boomers moving to retirement, aging, the
medical field should be exploding with jobs right now. but instead they're not being created because of the uncertainty created by this bill. >> reporter: but house minority leader nancy pelosi said democrats firmly believe just the opposite, that health care will... health care reform helps the economy. >> our first responsibility here as we say over and over again is to create jobs. we are ready and willing to work with the republicans to achieve this goal. we believe that health care reform does just that. democrats have made a firm commitment that we will judge every proposal that comes before us as to whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class and reduces the deficit. the repeal of the patients rights fails on all three counts. >> reporter: democrats also use a report by the department of health and human services. it found as many as 129 million americans under age 65
have pre-existing conditions and could be rejected for coverage if the law is repealed. insurance companies said the numbers were exaggerated. but at the white house press secretary robert gibbs said the country won't accept that risk. >> the notion that there is some vast widespread support for doing away with the affordable care act, raising the deficit, putting insurance companies back in charge, there are a whole host of things that even republicans don't find suitable or tenable. >> reporter: in fact, the american public has been divided on the new law since its enactment. new polls captured the conflicting attitudes. a survey by a university found 48% favor repeal while 43% oppose it. in keeping with previous findings. a separate poll released by the associated press found the level of strong opposition to
the law at 30%. that's near the lowest it's been since september of 2009. a final vote in the house is expected wednesday evening, but democrats promise they'll block repeal in the senate. where they still hold the majority. >> lehrer: to judy woodruff. >> woodruff: joining us now from capitol hill for more on the health care repeal effort are california republican dan lungren and new york democrat anthony weiner. thank you both for being with us. congressman lungren, to you first. let's explore further this jobs argument that the republicans making. the title is repealing the job- killing health care law. your republican colleagues are arguing it's going to destroy or is is destroying 650,000 jobs. what is the evidence of that? >> well first of all there's not a single economist that believes that raising taxes in the midst of this economic
downturn even though some call it a recovery makes much sense and adds to job recovery. secondly you've already seen that hhs is is looking at 200 different major companies who have asked for waivers saying that they cannot go forward with what's imposed on them under this bill, lest they lose jobs. that's over 200 already. hhs is already talking about extending a number of those waivers. if in fact it doesn't have the effect of killing jobs those waivers would not be requested. in fact, we would not have the secretary suggesting that they be done. it makes no sense to allow the federal government to have that ability to say yes you have this obligation but, no, you do not because in the one case you've convinced us it is going to kill jobs. in the other case you haven't proven that. >> woodruff: representative weiner, with a about that? >> i can tell you what helps to create jobs. that is in the bill there's already a tax subsidy. 30% for small businesses to provide insurance for their workers. i can tell you that it crushes
jobs not doing anything about this problem. we pay about 20% of every single thing we create in this country. there's an added tax on it because that's the cost of health care. canada doesn't have it. china doesn't have it. our competitors don't have it. yet we have that added cost. there's one other thing being left out of this argument. the idea that if you don't cover people for insurance somehow they don't have health care challenges. they still do. they go in the hospital emergency rooms and pass along the costs to tax payers in california and tax payers in new york. that's why last the drag on the economy. not solving this problem is not the solution. but you really should not expect anything different from the new republican congress. they campaigned on eliminating this thing but they didn't campaign on what they're in favor of which is a big question for them. >> woodruff: just quickly representative weiner on this question of cost, the republicans are saying there's a bill, essentially, coming due. 2.5 trillion dollars they say this is going to cost over next couple decades. they're saying the democrats sold the congressional budget office a bill of goods that
the numbers you're citing, they're citing are not accurate. how can there even be agreement on what this is going to cost the american people? >> well the congressional budget office is our referee around here. i know the republicans don't like the answer they gave because it says that this killing, eliminating this bill would cost tax payers 200 some odd billions dollars over ten years and $1.3 trillion over 20. let me explain why repealing this bill costs money. the uninsured are going to get subsidies to buy insurance. therefore they're not going to be passing along the bills to all of us that have insurance and pasesing it along to the taxpayers. it's much less expensive to have them get insurance than it is to keep paying their bills in emergency rooms. >> woodruff: representative. >> if i could respond to that. on the one case you're talking about a half trillion dollars in addition to new taxes that otherwise would not go into effect. you're talking about a half trillion dollars in cuts in medicare not to solve the problem with medicare but to create new programs. a lot of that is going to be on the backs of those senior
citizens who currently have medicare advantage. i happen to have one of the highest percentage of senior citizens in the country on medicare advantage. it's something they want. it's something they have voluntarily decided that they would enter into. and their health care is the better for it. we are eliminating all of those things. there's a double counting of the savings that is included in the suggestion that is made by my colleague from new york. so the costs are enormous here. and the costs are not effective. the idea that republicans are not campaigning or did not campaign on alternatives to the health care bill as it came out from the democrats is absolutely ludicrous. we had 80 eight zero, 80 amendments offered before the rules committee to have alternatives considered when we had it brought up last year. the democratically controlled rules committee allowed us zero. that's why they're able to say there were no republicans alternatives on the floor. they didn't allow them. we will present alternatives.
>> woodruff: representative weiner, we know that republicans are going to come just very quickly they're going to come behind this with smaller efforts to make some changes. the democrats are going to go along with them in one part of that a tax change that has to do with what is it $600 worth of transactions? are there any other specific things that you think the two parties can agree on when it comes to health care. >> perhaps. if our attitude about this is where the american people are which is agreement and improve it as we need. the medicare program is much different than it was when it was first envisioned, social security is same. we'll have to fine tune. the republicans are going to come forward with. you should cover people that have pre-existing conditions. that's the law today. you should cover seniors that have prescription drug could haves. that's the law today. you should provide tax incentive for small businesses to get health insurance. that's the law today. the great unspoken truth here with my republican friends is they are going to argue that this whole thing that should be thrown out but they kind of
like the provisions in it because most americans do as well. >> woodruff: representative lungren, can you tell us a few pieces of this that you want to see survive. >> i find it tough enough about what i believe and what my republicans colleagues do. my opponent has no problem about talking about what he thinks republicans stand for. look, we want patient-centered health care. we want to make sure that the bureaucracy is not involved in this process. we have talked about pre-existing conditions. in fact we came forward with a much more vigorous program for having those pooled programs around the country for people with pre-existing conditions. we ought to build on that. that legislation started a number of years ago. we ought to continue with that. we want to make sure that there are incentives for small businesses to be able to have alternatives to the traditional insurance policies that are available to them now. to give some greater competition. we also want to enable people to buy or purchase health care policies across state lines which will add to the
competition and give people far more opportunities to decide what is best for their unique situations. >> woodruff: i want to conclude by asking you both, we were told the rhetoric was going to be cooled in the aftermath of what happened in tucson, arizona, last week. do you feel, representative weiner, that the language, the rhetoric of this debate is cooler than what it would have otherwise been? >> i certainly do. in fact in a minor but important thing they changed the name of the bill to the job crushing rather than the job killing bill. i think little things do help. it shouldn't change the idea that a lot of the disagreements we have are philosophical in nature. mr. lungren and i are friends and differ philosophically. he believes that people uninsured should go into the emergency rooms and the tax payers provide the bill. but by all means, i think that one of the lessons we should take away both from the president's speech and the lesson we learned is that we should turn down the volume
somewhat. but having disagreement s is what this country was based on. i don't think there's anything wrong with that. >> woodruff: representative lungren, do you feel the language has come down a notch, a decibel level or two? >> i hope so, judy, although again i would like to be able to speak for myself rather than my colleague here tell you what i think. look, i grew up in a doctor's family. my dad was my hero. my dad still is my hero even though he's been gone for ten years. i saw what patient-centered, relationships with doctors were all about. and that's what drives me in all of this. how do you make sure that that special bond between doctor and patient is there? i remember my dad treating people and getting not a penny for it. he did that gladly. i would hope that we go down in this debate about what is best for the average american who needs health care, would needs to see a doctor, rather than some of this other kind of rhetoric that we seem to dwell so much on. >> woodruff: we hear you both
loud and clear. >> dan has got the last word. a new sign of civility. >> woodruff: representative weiner and representative lungren, gentlemen, thank you both. >> thank you, judy. >> ifill: still to come on the newshour, >> ifill: still to come on the newshour, the pressure to revalue china's currency; the view from south korea on relations with china; and the leadership for apple. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: at least 52 iraqis were killed today when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of iraqi police recruits. it happened outside the police station in tikrit, the northern city that was saddam hussein's hometown. doctors said the number of wounded reached at least 150. many were applicants waiting to be processed for 2,000 new police jobs. the former dictator of haiti, jean-claude "baby doc" duvalier, now faces criminal charges in his homeland. police in port-au-prince took him to court today, two days after he returned from nearly 25 years in exile.
a prosecutor said he's charged with corruption, theft, and other crimes. the accusations stem from duvalier's 15 years in power, ending in 1986. a judge will decide if the case goes to trial. the political unrest in tunisia raged for another day, despite the announcement of a new government. protesters in the north african nation demanded the new cabinet be purged of members of the old regime. we have a report from john ray of independent television news. >> a new unity government in tunisia. but the day seemed united in name only. the worst violence here since the president fled, protests that might yet threaten his successors. once again there is plenty of tear gas. i've seen a policeman fire directly into the crowd and then charged with battery. a very, very unsafe place to be. for hours police fought
running battles with demonstrators. the injured swept away in makeshift ambulances. their defiance encouraged by news that less than 24 hours after taking office all ministers, members of the opposition, quit the coalition government. but many are already enjoying freedoms undreamt of in a lifetime. the first time headlines written by journalists not dictated by the government. >> first and last for the people. >> reporter: at this newspaper office, the censor's chair is not empty. >> today we are feeling free. here. >> reporter: can there ever be any good back? >> no. >> reporter: the prime minister an ally of the deposed president says his country has entered a new era of liberty. the protests are part of the price. the final cost still to be
calculated. >> holman: in western africa today, nigeria's army confirmed soldiers now have "shoot to kill" orders to quell violence before the upcoming presidential election. on monday, angry christians killed a muslim election worker in the central city of jos. the violence in jos has killed at least 500 people in recent months. the president of china arrived in washington this evening for a state visit. hu jintao flew into andrews air force base, just outside the capital. he was greeted by vice president biden, who led the u.s. welcoming delegation. hu has a private dinner with president obama tonight, then full-scale meetings tomorrow. white house press secretary robert gibbs previewed the agenda. >> we have a cooperative but a competitive relationship with china. we understand the difficult challenges that lie ahead. you mentioned iran and north korea in the security basket. currency is an important, i'd say, currency and trade in the
economic basket and the very important issue and real issue of human rights. >> holman: the two leaders will take questions tomorrow at a formal white house news conference. president obama has ordered a sweeping review of federal regulations as he moves to mend relations with business. the action today targeted red tape that imposes an unreasonable burden and hurts job creation. the president wrote in the "wall street journal" that he wants to "bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules." comcast won government approval today to take over nbc universal in a joining of two media giants. ray suarez has our report. >> the following program.... >> suarez: nbc television, the historic peacock network will soon have a new home. the federal communications commission and the justice department gave final approval to letting the parent company,
nbc-universal, merge with comcast, the nation's largest cable tv and internet provider. the plan was set in motion in december, 2009, when general electric announced it would sell its majority stake in nbc- universal for nearly $14 billion. approval of the merger means comcast will take over nbc- universal's more than two dozen cable networks including usa and sci-fi, the universal pictures movie studio and the nbc family of networks and comcast with nearly 24 million subscribers will own one out of every seven tv channels. but after a year-long review, fcc chairman threw his support behind the merger last december with some conditions. key among them assurances the merged company would not stifle competition in on-line video. and would share nbc content with companies such as you-tube. if rival networks do the same.
in addition, comcast must ensure that its 17 million high-speed internet customers have equal access to all web content, not just content controlled by comcast. >> holman: on wall street, stocks continued a new year's rally. the dow jones industrial average gained 50 points to close near 11,838. that's its highest point since june of 2008. the nasdaq rose ten points to close at 2765. democratic senator kent conrad of north dakota announced today he will not run for reelection next year. he's served in the senate since 1986, and chairs the budget committee. but he faced a potentially tough reelection fight in a state that's increasingly republican. another senate veteran, republican kay bailey hutchison, announced her plans not to run again. she's held that seat since 1993. sargent shriver, the former peace corps director and vice presidential nominee, has died.
he passed away today at a hospital in bethesda, maryland, after a long struggle with alzheimer's. shriver was the first head of the peace corps under president kennedy, his brother-in-law, and was democrat george mcgovern's running mate in 1972. in between, he ran president johnson's war on poverty in the 1960s. he complained the war in vietnam hurt the effort. as in this interview with a correspondent of cbs news. >> i think it would be a gross deception to delude the american people that something substantial is being done about problems here at home such as lack of education, lack of health, lack of justice, lack of housing, lack of opportunity, to delude them that something is being done about that when you appropriate so little money that you can't do anything substantial about it. how can anybody in their right mind decide that it is an intelligent expenditure of your dollar to put 75 cents into military wars and drop
out a cent and a quarter to solve the problems of the poor here at home. >> holman: sargent shriver was 95 years old. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to gwen. >> ifill: we turn to the first of two segments on what's on the agenda, when president obama meets with china's president tomorrow at the white house. first, newshour economics correspondent paul solman updates his ongoing coverage of a key dispute between the u.s. and china over currency and trade. it's part of his reporting on making sense of financial news. >> one dominant issue at the u.s.-china summit, the chinese policy of hold down the value of their currency. which continues to give chinese products and companies a supposedly unfair competitive edge. u.s. officials have long pressed their chinese counterparts to let the currency rise in value. sometimes making the case more forcefully than at others. on friday treasury secretary
geithner said the currency had made substantial gains. a more forgiving stance than he took two days earlier. >> we believe it's in china's interest to allow the currency to appreciate more rapidly in response to marbt forces. we believe china will do so because the alternative would be too costly both for china and for china's relations with the rest of the world. >> reporter: secretary of state clinton. >> we need to open up more opportunities for american manufactured goods, farm and ranch products and services, as well as allowing currency to appreciate more rapidly. these reforms we believe would not only benefit both our countries but contribute to global economic balance, predictability and broader prosperity. >> you have seen a small move lower in the dollar but not pressureably so. >> reporter: back in november, david stek, who runs the foreign exchange desk of a securities company in new york, showed us how the dollar had been faring against the chinese currency. >> here you're looking at a
long term chart. >> reporter: for many years china glued its currency to the u.s. dollar, but starting in 2005, china loosened its grip. letting the value of the dollar fall against the chinese currency, some 20% over three years. but in 2008 the world financial crisis hit. and china reglued the currency to the dollar. in the aftermath china has recovered while the u.s. economy limps along, our unemployment rate distressingly high. >> this move to happen. we want to get back on this path. that the dollar go down in value against the chinese currency. >> reporter: because we can sell more exports and import less. >> correct. and perhaps preserve more manufacture being jobs. >> reporter: but that's just how china looks at it, says m.i.t.economist. >> the chinese have sectors that have large employer and they tend to be larger in terms of unemployment as compared with companies that don't sell abroad. so when the premiere said that
the currency appreciation is going to have a very substantial negative effect on unemployment, i agree with him. >> reporter: but how exactly does china control the value of its currency? certainly not in markets like this. >> every day at 9:15 beijing time the central bank, the people's bank of china issues a circular to all the banks in china. what that circular says is this is going to be the reference rate of the dollar against the chinese currency for today. >> reporter: suppose the ford motor company buys some chinese steel, says david stek? >> ford pays china steel, say, $50 million. china steel now has $50 million. a chinese company you want your own currency. the state bank will issue chinese currency to the steel company in exchange for those dollars. the state bank will go to the central bank to exchange those dollars. >> reporter: china's central
bank, amasses the dollars paid to chinese companies. hundreds of billions of dollars a year. if it simply spends them, the bank risks flooding the world with so many dollars that the demand for them is bound to go down. the dollar would then drop in price. >> they have to put those dollars somewhere. those dollars are being put in the deepest, most liquid market in the world which is the u.s. treasury market. that is where you have this very circular logic of china running big trade surpluses, the u.s. running big deficits but they're inter-linked. >> reporter: because china is lending us the money to run our big deficits. >> one interpretation is that, you know, china is basically lending us the money to buy stuff from them. >> reporter: and to some, this is the road to ruin. this graphic futuristic fear video went viral before the fall election. it's about the rise of china, the decline and fall of great empires like ours which
overspent says the chinese professor. no surprise that america became hopelessly in debt. >> reporter: that's one view of the chinese. but they say they're just being prudent. controlling their currency to keep hot money from overheating their economy. >> money that goes back and forth very, very quickly. they build up prices. they buy up the real estate assets. they buy up stock mark assets. pick up the prices. and then they have a catastrophic fall. that's the fear. >> reporter: but an actively discouraging hot money by for bidding the open trading of its currency, china opens itself to the now familiar charge. if china keeps its currency artificially low, that means its products are artificially low. its companies get the business and it takes jobs from the
united states. >> having a trade deficit for the united states is the function of this country simply consuming beyond its means. >> reporter: if china's goods were more expensive than they currently are, you think the united states would still be borrowing money? >> from india. from vietnam. from brazil. i'm not saying completely. all i'm saying is that it is very difficult to make the argument with the chinese and say you do something about it. but we can spend the way we want, right? that's not a winning argument with anybody. >> reporter: meanwhile the chinese authorities have had other economic concerns of late according to chinese economist. >> china has been very much concerned about costs increase. wage increase. raw material price increase. and all those means that the
chinese companies, exporting companies and other companies, are losing competitiveness. >> reporter: and says the professor, whom we met at the annual economics convention earlier this month, those inflationary cost increases in wages, in raw materials, in property prices, will inevitably make chinese products more expensive. as it happens, this is the very argument secretary geithner has used to convince the chinese to revalue their currency. because, he says. >> if china does not allow the currency to appreciate more rapidly, it will run the risk of seeing domestic inflation accelerate as you are already seeing and we'll face greater risk of a damaging rise in asset prices. >> reporter: but the professor says it doesn't matter because chinese inflation or chinese currency revaluation has in effect the same results. >> basically the chinese income is rising. chinese price is rising. and the u.s. income is stagnating. so the two are converging.
that's what we expect. this is what happens no matter what the chinese do. if we just have a little more patience, everything will actually fall into place. >> reporter: that may be more nearly china's position on the currency issue than the administration's, however, as hu jintao comes to visit america. >> the state visit is being watched around the world, including in south korea. attention there is focused on discussions of north korea's nuclear ambitions. margaret warner has been reporting from seoul this week. jeffrey brown spoke to her earlier today. margaret last night your story focused on the latest tensions between north and south korea. given those developments how do the south koreans view this visit to washington by president hu? what do they want the u.s. to push vis-a-vis north korea? >> they think this is a huge visit, jeff. what they want bottom line is they want president obama to
persuade president hu that china needs to pressure north korea to act more, quote, responsibly vis-a-vis south korea. that means to end these military attacks or provocations and also get serious about limiting their missile and nuclear weapons program. and they want... what's more, they want beijing to persuade north korea to do it on the south's terms, that is, to have a preliminary meeting where they admit and apologize for the attacks of last year. fair to say that south korea feels betrayed by china in the last year because china would not join the rest of the world in rebuking for north korea on the attack of the warship last march. or this recent november shelling of this island near the two coasts. so i asked one senior official here, well, what makes you think that president obama has that leverage with china? and he said, oh, no country has more clout with china than the united states because
china's prosperity depends on the u.s. markets. so rightly or wrongly i think the south koreans are hoping for something out of this meeting. >> brown: how much influence do the south koreans think china has on north korea particularly on its nuclear aspirations. >> warner: they think a lot. they point out particularly since international sanctions have gone into effect that north korea is hugely dependent on china economically. the figures used here and it's always hard to know about north korea is that north korea gets 90% of its oil, 47% of its foreign trade and 45-55% of its food from china. what's more essentially north korea's only border to the rest of the world, land border, is with china. there's a tiny sliver will it joins russia. north korea needs that border for legitimate trade and smuggling. as far as the south koreans are concerned the chinese have a lot of leverage but they're not willing to use it.
there are a lot of theories here as to why the most prevalent theory is the south koreans believe that the chinese are afraid that if north korea is so fridge ill, if they put too much pressure on it and there's any instability that will spill over into china. what's more is that in fact if there is a collapse up there that south korea will rush in and have a unified korean peninsula that is is democratic and a market economy right on china's borders. the national security advisors said to me late last week china values today's peace and stability more than they value tomorrow's. in other words that they want the status quo. >> brown: the broader question, of course, is chin flexing its power in so many ways throughout asia including south korea, how is that felt there? where do you see china's impact. >> warner: well, first of all, jeff, clearly economically in trade. in other words, china is south
korea's number one trading partner. and unlike the united states south korea and chin,... the south korea has a positive trade balance with china. more exports to china than imports. south korea did incredibly well in the global recession. they were the first o.e.c.d.country to actually bounce back. that's because china remained a very vibrant market. so that's the first economic clout that you see. and they watch with alarm as china, for instance, remember when they cut off the rarest metals exports to japan over a fishing waters dispute? one industrialist said to me the other day, you know, koreans now see the chinese as they always have or as they always have been which are bullies. on the other hand militarily they do see china flexing its muscle militarily or building itself up militarily. i met with a deputy defense
minister today who talked about that. they don't feel under any threat from china. after all they have u.s. troops here. what they do see is, as he said to me today, they see china aiding north korea economically and militarily at least in so far as giving, helping the north korean military with fuel. so they're uncomfortable with china's growing power. but not as an immediate threat to them. >> brown: finally, we're talking about recent events but there's a lot of history here, right, with korea forced to see and deal with china as the great power? >> warner: oh, absolutely, jeff. more than one person has said to me, you know, we've been invaded by japan or china literally hundreds of times in the last two or three thousand years. there were centuries where korea was considered a, quote, vas al state to china. so if a ruler was going to come into power in korea, it had to be approved by the chinese imperial court.
one businessman i talked to the other day said china still sees us as a south korea. south korea may be the 12th largest g.d.p. in the world but they still see us as a satellite. there is an expression here that korea uses about itself developing itself as a shrimp between two whales. the whales, of course, being china and japan. if you look at korea, it's shaped like a shrimp. that gives you a sense of korea's sense of its place in this booming east asia economy. on the one hand they're very happy to be here. they want to be part of that club. that very vibrant economic club. but they do have a sense that they are indeed still a shrimp between two whales. >> brown: margaret warner in seoul, south korea, thanks a lot. >> warner: thanks, jeff. >> lehrer: on thursday, margaret examines south korean reaction to the state visit. >> ifill: now, a c.e.o.'s departure and its potential impact. steve jobs' announcement that he
will step aside because of health issues-- his third such leave in less than a decade-- has shaken the business world. the man behind products like the iphone and ipad did not disclose the details of his illness, but he survived pancreactic cancer in 2004 and a liver transplant in 2009. in his only public statement on the matter, jobs said he is leaving "so i can focus on my health." >> ifill: joining us to explain why everyone's watching this so closely is troy wolverton, who covers the tech world for the "san jose mercury news." troy, i want to start out with the news this afternoon which is that apple apparently did a bang-up job in sales in the last quarter and broke its own records. >> they did phenomenally well, gwen. we sold a record number of ipads. they sold as many ipads during the holiday quarter as they
did in the previous two quarters since releasing the ipad. they sold a record number of i- phones, 62.2 million. they sold a record number of computers which is the most impressive things given how long the mac has been on the market. >> ifill: with that kind of news coming out of apple, why did we hear this not so good news yesterday? >> well, the timing, of course, has to do with steve jobs and how his health is doing. in terms of the not so good news, whether and how people are reacting to it, you know, i think that people are concerned about not necessarily the short-term impact for apple but the long- term impact of steve jobs not being with the company. >> ifill: do people in the industry consider that the health of the company depends on the health of steve jobs? is it so intricately tied up in this one guy? >> well, that's kind of the, i guess, the myth maybe. steve jobs is apple. in many people's minds anyway.
he has been solely identified with or the embodiment of the apple's resurrection. when he came back to apple in 199, 1997, apple was darned near in bankruptcy. it was about a month or so from actually filing bankruptcy papers. apple now is the second most valuable in the country... company in the world after exxon mobile. he's done a phenomenal job if you just look at those statistics. jobs gets a lot of credit for that rebound. people are concerned about what that means if he's no longer with the company. he's seen as not only this guy who was a phenomenal business leader that led this turn-around but a visionary for the company that led developments of the products such as the ipad and i-phone that have captured mainstream america. he's seen as a tough negotiator, somebody who can walk into the room with the big wigs as hollywood and get the deals done. he's seen as being very intricate to the success of
apple. >> ifill: but he has stepped aside before. what happened when that happened before? what happened to apple when he was gone in 2004 and 2009. >> in 2004 his departure from the company wasn't so much of a departure. it was not really widely known that he wasn't with the company. in 2009 he made a very public departure from the company, stepped away from the company for about six or seven months. the company did very well in his absence. was being managed by tim cook who is company's chief operating officer. the comp company did very well. >> ifill: who is tim cook? who is he and how does he keep the company rolling when steve jobs wasn't there? >> he come from compaq. he's been with the company for something like ten years at apple. he is known to be very good at operations, at making sure that the trains run on time. he's known to be a very good negotiator and negotiating with apple suppliers.
he is a very competent, very good business manager. >> ifill: what kind of a business manager is steve jobs in terms of hands-on development? it's one thing to have a ceo sit in a corner office and oversee things. is he the kind of guy who was saying this is what the size of the ipad should be? this is what the next generation of the i-phone should look like? >> jobs has played kind of this dual role. he plays the big picture role at apple where he takes a look at some of the visionary products and the marketing. but he also is known for getting down and dirty with many of the products at apple. you know, my sources tell me that he has something like ten things on his plate at any one time. he approves on a very minute basis very small details about those products. and insists on certain design aesthetics of those products. he makes sure that certain things look the way they look. you know, if a product within that purview doesn't meet his specifications, it goes back
to the drawing board or back for improvements. >> ifill: is it fair to assume that nobody tonight knows what's wrong with his health this time. >> it's fair to assume that nobody outside of his immediate family and close circle knows exactly what's going on with him, yes. >> ifill: what does it mean this time that when he announced when he was leaving, he said i'll be back in six months. this time there was an open ended description of his departure. >> right. i think he said something like i hope to be back at the company. it's anybody's guess to know what that means. at some point it starts to get into... i think it means that you have to take him at his word that he would like to be back at apple but he doesn't know what his return is going to look like. by all accounts, he is suffering from, you know, serious health problems. he wants to spend some time with his family-heal up. >> ifill: with the kind of
numbers we saw come out of apple today apple itself is in a fairly strong position to at least for now get by. >> i think that the assessment of apple from analysts and people who watch the company closely and former insider s is that the company has not only people like to talk about having a deep bench. they have a lot of very good and strong and competent executive at the company. but perhaps more importantly they have a very deep list of products in development, and they have some very strong technology. that can be built upon. they have a very strong market presence. a source of mine basically said they can put this on auto pilot and it would do well for quite a while. >> ifill: thank you so much. >> thank you. >> ifill: finally tonight, how mental illness challenges public policy. the tucson shootings forced that
issue back to the front burner, but it's a debate that never really went away. this week, public television stations will rebroadcast "minds on the edge," a fred friendly seminar featuring a panel of distinguished jurists, doctors and mental health experts. together they address a hypothetical mental health dilemma-- in this instance, the fictitious case of james, a 32- year-old schizophrenic whose mother has recently died. frank sesno of george washington university is your guide. >> james, can you give us a sense of what he's experiencing. >> sure. i think i actually have special insight because i have experienced those things myself. i'm a person with chronic schizophrenia. the best way to describe having a psychotic episode is like a waking nightmare where things are crazy, bizarre, frightening, confusing. with schizophrenia you have
delusions and hallucinations and disordered thinking. like i was on the roof and i said someone has infiltrated. i don't believe in joints but they do hold your body together. loosely associated words and phrases but experienceally the feeling is utter terror. >> james is feeling very alone. >> he needs support. everybody needs support. there are resources available. community mental health centers. so it might be useful for him to contact social worker at a community mental health center and get some kind of support in his life. >> james is feeling very alone as you said and he's scared and he's staying in his apartment. he now can't go to work. he's paralyzed. he loses his job. but in a moment of clarity, he does know he needs help. >> right. >> and where he knows to go is again the emergency room. >> right. >> but they're overflowing. they say they can't help. but they do want to commend
him to an outpatient clinic, commonwealth clinic. and they give him an appointment there at 3:00 on wednesday. three weeks from now. surprise you? >> no. it's all too familiar and disappointing. very few people referred out of emergency rooms actually make it to outpatient clinics. he needs a different kind of an approach. he needs a intensive case manager that can actually escort him out of that emergency room to the next.... >> wait, wait, wait, wait. they've given him an appointment. and he's not going to end up there. >> no. james probably doesn't wear a watch. he's already disoriented. he doesn't know three weeks from three months. he doesn't track time well right now. he's in this illness. >> but he wanted treatment. >> as you said, they say here's your medicine. it will make you better. here's your appointment. by the way they have a record
on james. this isn't his first. he's been receiving medication. they could say, you know, we're going to send you back to the commonwealth behavioral center. but if he's been an active psychotic episode right then, he needs treatment now not in three weeks. >> james is absolutely in crisis. his mom has just died. this is a major crisis. of course he's going to have very strong feelings about it. and being locked up or bringing in police or... that's really scary. that is going to escalate. if i'm james that's going to escalate me. i need a safe place. >> you tell me this happens all the time. >> he will not be admitted. he has not represented any danger to himself or others. they will not keep him. they will treat him as another person coming through that emergency room. >> james walks out with his appointment three weeks from now. >> and maybe a prescription. >> and maybe a prescription. and is disoriented. he is now about to have something else happen.
he is arrested for public you're nation. ... urination. he now goes not to the hospital but to? >> jail. >> surprised? >> not at all. judges are much more likely to see consumers with mental illness than psychiatrists. >> judges are more likely than psychiatrists? >> by far. >> you see more people with mental illness than the doctor here? >> probably ten times more a day than she does. >> what is going on here? >> well, he's committed a crime. law enforcement officer is there to enforce the law. we have over a million people a year arrested in this country with severe mental illness. over a million. >> step aside from your role for a minute and speak as a journalist, what's happening here? >> in the '60s and '70s we had a little under a million people in state mental hospitals. many of tease places were horrific places. we started closing them down. we never built the community
system necessary. today there are less than 55,000 people in state hospitals. there are 300,000 with bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia and major depression in jail. 500,000 on probation. that's due to two things in my opinion, no community safety net and laws that say a person has to be a danger before anyone can successfully intervene. >> james doesn't get kept in jail. there's not room. he hasn't committed a major crime. the worst scenario is the police say, you know, don't do it again. they put him on the street. >> he just may go off the radar screen and quietly live somehow out of dumpsters. if he's lucky, if you happens to live in an area where there's a competent and dedicated group of outpatient psychiatrists and treatment systems, he may have the good fortune to cross paths with that. they may be able to help him. but if i were playing the odds
across the country the likelihood of that happening is is barely remote. >> it's almost an impossibility. >> an impossibility? >> as you listen to this, don't you understand that the mental health system is a definition of insanity at this point. we keep doing the same thing again and again. and we expect a different outcome. it will not change until the system changes. what most likely will happen he may run into the same police officer. the officer says, you know what? i took him on a misdemeanor and they let him out. now he ran away from me. i'm going to charge him to a felony. he's going to come through the felony system and he's going to sit eight times longer than someone without mental illness and we're going to get him into a state hospital so we can restore his competency so we can try him and send him to jail. a third of our mental health company is going to beds to restore competency. there's no money at the front end to keep people out. that's your reality. >> your odds of income the
right place at the right time are pretty low. the money in some states is is more readily available than money in other states. the problem is we refer to it as a system. it isn't a system. it is lots of things that are sort of put together almost by bubble gum. as opposed to by any plan. and the goal for most of us in policy making positions is to try to untangle enough to create a system. >> ifill: this fred friendly seminar on facing mental illness can be seen on most pbs stations this week. check your local listings. and join the dialogue online at mindsontheedge.com. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day. the u.s. house opened debate on a republican drive to repeal the health care reform law. and comcast won government approval to take over nbc universal in a joining of two media giants.
and that's the newshour for tonight. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> oil companies have changed my country. >> oil companies can make a difference. >> we have the chance to build the economy. >> create jobs, keep people healthy, and improve schools. >> and our communities. >> in angola chevron helps train engineers, teachers and farmers, launch child's programs. it's not just good business. >> i'm hopeful about my country's future. >> it's my country's future. and by united healthcare. bnsf railway. and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology,
and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org