Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Obama's Latest Health Care Push
Aired March 03, 2010 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Those aren't my numbers. Those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress in terms of how much stuff costs. So, that is our proposal.
This is where we've ended up. It's an approach that has been debate and changed, and I believe improved, over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans, including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that have no place in health care reform, provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.
Now, despite all that we agree on and all of the Republican ideas we have incorporated, many, probably most Republicans in Congress, just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I have put forward.
Now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what I'm proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problems of the uninsured say we just can't afford to help them right now, which is why the Republican proposal only covers three million uninsured Americans, while we cover over 31 million.
The problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can't prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. You can't limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets.
The insurance reforms rest on everybody having access to coverage. And you also don't do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they are forced to go to the emergency room for care to the tune of about $1,000 per family. You can't get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. So, the fact is that health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once. Now, both during and after last week's summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle class families get insurance, I don't see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren't starting over. They are continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak.
For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade or even more. The American people and the U.S. economy just can't wait that long.
So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform.
(APPLAUSE)
We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a super majority of 60 votes. And now, it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children's Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts, all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.
I have therefore asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And I --
(APPLAUSE)
And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well. Every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, physician's assistant, make your voice heard.
This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that's because health care a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved long ago.
As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. And as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship and misrepresentation and misunderstanding. But that's not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. That's not an excuse for us to walk away.
We can't just give up because the politics are hard. I know there's been a fascination bordering on obsession in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. How will this play? What will happen with the polls? I will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that's not what this is about. That's not why we are here.
This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has.
This is about what reform would mean for middle class families who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first times in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick. This is about what reform would mean for all of those men and women I have met over the last few years who have been brave enough to share their stories.
When we started our push for reform last year, I talked to a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka (ph). She has two young children.
She thought she had beaten her breast cancer, but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt, and now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is to spend time with her children and focus on getting well.
This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn't have to.
(APPLAUSE)
In the end, that's what this debate is about. It's about what kind of country we want to be. It's about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.
So, at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership.
I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.
Thank you very much, everybody. Let's get this done.
(APPLAUSE)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So there, the president of the United States makes his case, it's crunch time for health care reform right now. He says it's got to be done in the next few weeks. The leadership in the Senate and the House, they'd like to get it done by the Easter recess at the end of this month, not an easy chore by any means. The challenge is still enormous.
David Gergen, the president made the case that he wants this passed with an up-and-down vote in the U.S. Senate and a majority vote, obviously, in the House.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Wolf, yesterday, he delivered the velvet glove, a conciliatory letter about Republican proposals. Today, he delivered the steel fist, a call to pass this regardless of whether Republicans are going to come on board. He knows full well they're not, and this is going to set off one of the biggest battles and one of the most significant battles in Congress in this decade.
BLITZER: He made it clear, Gloria, this is now his legislation. The president of the United States has come up with his plan. It will be tinkered with in the House and the Senate, but it's basically his plan. It's do or die.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: It's ownership. He's taken a huge, calculated political risk here that, in the end, the American people will judge that he's on the right side of history on this and that Republicans are on the wrong side. You know, it's not like he's going to get a bunch of Republicans to go along with him on this.
And in this speech, one thing I noticed, Wolf, he clearly made the insurance companies the enemy. And he said to the American public, you do not want the insurance companies regulating your life and your health insurance.
BLITZER: Let's get some reaction from the Republican side of the aisle. Senator Lamar Alexander is the number three Republican in the U.S. Senate. He's the Republican from Tennessee.
You had a fascinating exchange with the president at Blair House last week, Senator. Give me your quick reaction. Did he convince you?
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), TENNESSEE: It was very disappointing. I mean, we spent seven and a half hours talking about ways that we could set -- cutting costs is our goal. I mean, that's the real way to get your health insurance premiums down and to keep the government from going broke.
And the president is basically saying even though the American people have tried to say in every way they know how they don't want this bill, the CNN poll showed only a quarter of the American people support this bill, the president says, we don't care, we're going to straight ahead, we're going to pass it anyway. We're going to jam it through with a partisan vote.
BLITZER: Well, he says it already passed the Senate with a super majority of 60 votes, already passed the House with a majority -- you don't need super majorities in the House of Representatives. Now to make a few minor changes, or relative minor changes, he says, go ahead with an up-and-down vote in the Senate. What's wrong with that since Republicans have done that on many occasions as well?
ALEXANDER: Well, the first thing wrong, Wolf, it's not the Senate here. It's the House.
Most people are focusing on the Senate, but the House is going to vote. And what he's basically asking the House Democrats to do is to join hands, jump off a cliff, and hope Harry Reid catches them. And Harry Reid is going to have no incentive to catch them, because as soon as the House passes this bill, it goes to the president, the president will sign it. It's law, and then it goes to the Senate to see if the Senate can fix the Cornhusker Kickback, can fix this, can fix that, can fix the abortion language. And there is no guarantee that will happen.
BLITZER: But my understanding, Senator, is that it would come up for an up-or-down vote in the House of Representatives. The Senate version, the version that passed with 60 votes in the Senate.
ALEXANDER: That's right.
BLITZER: But then the House would vote immediately after that on some changes to that Senate version, an up-and-down vote, and then those changes go back to the Senate for an up-and-down vote.
ALEXANDER: No, that's wrong. They're going to send it right to the president. They're going to split it.
They are going to send the big bill, the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve that was written in secret and voted on at 1:00 a.m. As soon as it passes the House, it goes right down to the White House. The president signs it, and then they send the reconciliation part over to the Senate, and we get to decide whether to make the changes.
So, it's up to the Democratic House members --
BLITZER: But the House has to vote on that reconciliation -- what's called reconciliation changes right away. That's part of the deal that Nancy Pelosi will have with those in the House, the Democrats who don't like the Senate version.
ALEXANDER: Well, that's true. They will have to vote on it. But what I'm saying is that the spotlight should be on the House vote, because once the House passes it, it will go to the president and it will become law, regardless of what the Senate does.
BLITZER: Ali Velshi has a question for you, Senator Alexander.
Go ahead, Ali.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Senator, last week at the health care summit, you and the president got into it a little bit about those Americans who are insured, whether under this proposal their premiums are going to go up or go down. You said they were going up, the president said they were going down. This went back and forth a few times. Subsequently, I imagine you've been digging into this a little more.
Again, the president said today this cost-cutting measure mirrors the proposals in the current Senate bill which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit.
Do you agree with that?
ALEXANDER: Well, what I said the other day was absolutely accurate. I said for millions of Americans, individual premiums will go up because of government mandates and taxes. And that's precisely what the Congressional Budget Office, that the president likes to cite, said on November 30th.
It's true that some people will get subsidies, but the rest of the people won't. And to give you an example, Senator Susan Collins in Maine said because of the government mandates in this bill, 87 percent of the people who have individual policies in Maine today will pay more under the president's bill. Give half of them subsidies which taxpayers pay for, and still 30 percent or 40 percent are paying more for their individual policies.
So, what people need to understand is this will raise their taxes, cut Medicare without putting the money into Medicare for millions, raise premium. It will raise the deficit because they are not counting doctors paying doctors who serve Medicare patients, and that's like having a horse race without a horse.
So that raises the deficit. And then they are sending a lot more to the states to pay. That will raise tuitions and taxes.
So that the more people get into this, they will see it's the same old car, old model that we rejected in December. And that's why 25 percent in the CNN poll say we like it and 75 percent say stop or start over.
BLITZER: How do you respond, Senator Alexander, to the president's assertion that the Democrats' plan will bring in an additional 31 million, largely middle class families, into the insurance programs that are out there? The Republican alternative would only add three million families, individuals, to the insurance program.
ALEXANDER: That is true, and we can't afford it. That's the reason that we have a half-trillion dollars in new taxes. That's the reason we're taking a half-trillion dollars out of Medicare, which is going broke by 2015. That's the reason all the governors are up in arms, because of the unfunded mandates.
And half of the people who the president plans to insure under his plan will be dumped into Medicaid, a government program. Half the doctors won't see Medicaid patients, so it's like giving people a ticket to a bus line without a bus. It's not real health care reform.
BLITZER: Senator Alexander, thanks very much for joining us.
ALEXANDER: Thank you for your time. BLITZER: Lamar Alexander is the number three Republican in the U.S. Senate.
Lots to digest, lots to absorb and appreciate right now. A seminal moment in this debate. The president said it's got to be done in the next few weeks.
We'll assess what's going on. Much more of our coverage right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: All right. The president of the United States, you heard him here live from the East Room at the White House making it clear he wants an up-and-down vote first in the House, then in the Senate. He wants health care reform legislation passed, he says, in the next few weeks.
Let's go to our senior congressional correspondent, Dana Bash.
Dana, one of the prospects, Nancy Pelosi's got a huge challenge ahead of her to get 217 -- I believe that's the magic number right now in the House of Representatives -- to get 217 members to support, to vote for the Senate version which a lot of Democrats in the Senate don't like.
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A huge challenge. As the president was speaking, and specifically when he was making his case for an up-or-down vote, which is code word for reconciliation, as you were talking about with Lamar Alexander, I was e-mailing with a senior Democratic source.
I said, "Does this help?" Because they've been asking for the president's leadership on this. And the response was, "Help, but it does not guarantee it will happen." Because it is still a very, very heavy lift, especially in what the president asked for, doing this in the next couple of weeks.
But what is going to happen, according to the Democratic sources I've been talking to today, is that this package of changes -- this is what they're going to put through that reconciliation process -- they hope to get that to the Congressional Budget Office to start figuring out how much it's going to cost by the end of this week, Wolf, or the beginning of next week. They have to in order to get this process moving.
And then there are a whole host of issues that they have to deal with. We're talking about Democrats versus Democrats, House versus Senate, and how they move this process along.
One of the big issues is, as Lamar Alexander was alluding to -- and he's right -- some jitters in the House of Representatives, whether they can get this passed. And one question is whether they even trust the Senate will pass the changes that they are demanding.
We might actually see a letter, an actual signed letter, Wolf, from 51 senators promising that, yes, they will in fact approve these changes in order to get the House to approve the Senate bill and, effectively, get this health care bill to the president's desk.
BLITZER: Right now, does she have those 217 votes in the House?
BASH: It's 216, 217, depending who is in the House right now, because there are several vacancies. Right now we don't know and she doesn't know, because there are some Democrats who actually voted no last time who are retiring who may, you know, say we have nothing to lose and switch their votes to yes. But there are some Democrats who voted yes, one of whom I spoke with -- at least his spokesman earlier today -- who says he does not like the Senate bill. He's in a very tough re-election race, and he's thinking about voting no.
So, all of those factors make this a very fluid situation, and that's why what is in this bill that will have the changes, the compromise here, is absolutely critical, and they are working that out right now.
BLITZER: Let's bring in Roland Martin, one of our political analysts.
Roland, the president really has laid it all out right now. It's do or die as far as he's concerned. No more delays. No more putting it off. It's got to be done in the next few weeks, he says.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, I mean, several folks -- and I have been tweeting this as well, that this is a speech that, frankly, should have come several months ago in terms of the president finally stating, this is what I want. Democrats have been saying, look, we need to hear from you clearly, what do you want?
The second thing, you'll notice he got more personal in this speech than he has done previous times. I go back to that news conference, that primetime news conference when he talked about reading the letters from Americans every day, and you are sitting there saying, OK, here's a moment when he is going to tell us one of those stories, and he never did.
It was also telling -- the first story he really spoke about was a single mother with breast cancer denied opportunities from a health insurance company. You know, he wouldn't talk about his mother in that way, but he, I think, in many ways was alluding to that as well.
The real test, Wolf, is whether or not this president truly has the power to lead his own party. The problem in the past year has not been Republicans. It has been Democrats. It has been getting them on the same page.
And so, we will see if he is truly the leader of the Democratic Party, if he can get his own party to coalesce around what he wants to do. That's his real challenge. Republicans have long been out of the picture. Now it's up to Democrats.
BLITZER: Roland, stand by.
Ali Velshi has been watching all of this. He's at the CNN Center with our own senior White House correspondent, Ed Henry.
The public out there is clearly not necessarily on board right now if you look at the public opinion polls, Ali.
VELSHI: Yes. Clearly not necessarily is exactly right.
I was just listening to Dana saying Nancy Pelosi maybe has 216, 217 votes. She needs 217 to make this work. And President Obama himself said in his speech, "I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard."
Now, I've got this poll up on the screen. Senator Lamar Alexander referred to this in his conversations with you and me a few times.
He said 75 percent of people are games the current bill, 25 percent are in favor. It's 25-73, is how you work it out.
But here is the question: "What should Congress do with health care?" Twenty-five percent say pass it, 48 percent say work on a new bill, 25 percent say stop working on it.
I just want to bring your attention to the fact that this is a poll that was taken by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation February 12th to 15th.
Ed is with me here.
Since February 12th to 15th, the president came out with a new proposal last Monday, with new ideas. Then they have had a health care summit, and now he has come up with his four ideas, plus four Republican ideas.
So I'm not sure -- I don't know whether that poll would change at all, but the reality is what Lamar Alexander is talking about was two incarnations ago of health care. This thing is changing faster than even polling can keep up with it.
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It is changing, but I think when you listen closely to Lamar Alexander, he is clearly not afraid of this president, not afraid of public opinion. Republicans are still very much united against this.
And what I would compare it to is the situation with Jim Bunning on unemployment insurance. And the reason I would is that in the last couple of days, Democrats close to the White House have been telling me they're getting momentum out of that whole Bunning fight because they believe it showed that Republicans are obstructing, they're stopping the president's agenda, and they think they'll get momentum out of that.
The problem though with that theory is that when you look at Jim Bunning, why did he give in finally? It's because fellow Republicans said you can't keep blocking unemployment extension benefits because jobs issue is the number one for the American people right now.
VELSHI: Right.
HENRY: They don't have the same fear on health care.
VELSHI: On this one.
HENRY: Instead, Republicans feel like they can block this without any retribution from the American people. We'll find out if they're right. But so far, when you look at most of these public opinion polls from CNN and others, it appears that Republicans are right, that the president --
VELSHI: Right. It's not the same thing.
HENRY: -- has not moved the needle with these many, many speeches.
VELSHI: So, Wolf, being obstructionists, if that's what you want to call it, on health care, they might be seen as doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, playing the role that the opposition plays in the Senate.
BLITZER: And as the president said last week at the Blair House summit, when he wrapped it up, he said, you know what? The voters will have a chance to decide who is right and who is wrong come November in those midterm elections.
David Gergen, one wildcard out there still is this Senate parliamentarian who has to decide that these reconciliation changes that the White House and some Democrats want to go through, that that's appropriate to use that in that reconciliation process.
GERGEN: This is where we're going to have a lot of focus on a person most Americans have never heard of, is the Senate parliamentarian. He was appointed by Republicans, Wolf. He's now worked for both sides.
Already today, some Republicans are calling into question whether he's too favorable to the Democrats. But in essence, what has to happen here, the House has to pass this bill that the Senate passed, and then somebody has got to knit together what the amendments are to that. And that's what goes through the reconciliation process.
And there are -- and in order for the parliamentarian to say it's OK under reconciliation, it has to be related to spending or taxation. If it's outside that, like abortion, then it doesn't seem to pass muster. So we're going to learn a lot about some very arcane rules, and this is going to be -- I can guarantee you, this is going to be --
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: I love those arcane rules.
And Gloria, it was interesting that at the end of his speech, the president said, "The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future." He is making this into a much bigger issue -- is Washington brokering?
BORGER: Right. And he's saying, I tried to fix it, I tried to work with Republicans, and I'm offering them this peace offering, and take it or leave it.
But one other thing, Wolf, I think is really important. In talking with someone at the White House today, he used the word "deliverables." What are the deliverables that people are going to see right away if this health care bill gets passed? Because pre- existing conditions for you and me may not.
We may not see that right away. But what we will see is the elimination of pre-existing conditions for children, more drug coverage right away for senior citizens, no lifetime caps on your insurance. But the other benefits of health reform, which are most of them, may be backloaded.
And so the public may judge very quickly and may not see some of the benefits. The White House is a little bit afraid of that.
(CROSSTALK)
GERGEN: And they're also postponing the costs.
BORGER: And they postpone how to pay for it, which is another big problem down the road.
BLITZER: Guys, don't go far away, because there is a lot to digest.
I want to go back to Ali Velshi.
Ali, we're going to have extensive coverage in "THE SITUATION ROOM," later today at 5:00 p.m. Eastern.
When the president says, Ali, this is a complicated issue, he is absolutely correct.
VELSHI: Yes. And this deserves the extensive coverage, and the best political team on television will give it.
This may be, as the president says, the last best chance for his party to get this done. Whether the Republicans will allow it to happen remains to be seen.
All right, Wolf. We'll continue this. Thanks very much.
We're also covering another big story. We heard just before the president started speaking that our CNN crews on the coast of Chile have been evacuated because of a tsunami warning. That tsunami warning has been lifted. We'll get back and find out exactly what the situation is on the Chilean coast.
We'll be back in a minute. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: OK, let's get back to some breaking news.
Earlier, we told you about a tsunami warning issued for quake- ravaged Chile. Now we are hearing that the warning has been lifted. Our Karl Penhaul is in Dichato, Chile.
What is the latest? Karl, go ahead and tell us what the latest is.
All right. I'm not sure that Karl can hear us. There he is, and he appears to be on dry ground. You can see the ocean behind him. He was telling us an hour ago that he was pushed up, and they were asked to go uphill.
Can you hear me, Karl? Tell us what is going on.
KARL PENHAUL, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I have got -- yes. I hear you fine now. What has happened now is that we had word from the military authorities in the regional capital of Concepcion, a city south of where we are that the tsunami alert has not been lifted. But as you know, we were on air with you and in the moments just after that tsunami warning was first issued following some very strong aftershocks, absolute scenes of chaos here.
We were standing down the hill there, and aid was being given out to the needy citizens of Dichato. After all, this town was destroyed by a tsunami Saturday. Very orderly lines, and then suddenly the military dropped what they were doing, the Marines, and they yell tsunami alert, tsunami alert, get out here And so suddenly they were hustling everybody and sending them to higher ground. The people who were receiving that aid, they dropped what they had and dumped it and began to run. Those who were too old, too unfit to run, you saw scenes of the them being dragged by the neighbors and in tears, many were clearly out of breath. And they all ran up this hill, followed by a stampede of cars.
And I'm going to take you round. The military told them to get as high as they could up this hill. And (AUDIO GAP) and these firefighters who have been standing behind those lines there, and then that is where they remain until the tsunami alert was lifted.
But it has to be said a lot of people are really not trusting what the authorities are saying. They are not trusting that the threat of a tsunami may be over, because they say they have the immediate experience that happened on Saturday. They say that after the earthquake on Saturday, authorities told them over the radio that there was no threat of a tsunami, but they trusted their instincts, not the authorities and headed to high ground then. And their instincts paid off and saved many of their lives, because that is when three tsunami waves followed. (AUDIO GAP)
So, today after the aftershock today, many are preferring for the time being at least to stay put on top of this hill, Ali. VELSHI: All right, well it's good to know that the road is open to the top of the hill, so that if people have to evacuate and get to higher ground, they are able to do that.
Karl, keep us posted on what happens and especially what happens after that tsunami -- the time that that tsunami was going to hit has passed.
Karl Penhaul in Dichato, Chile, and he will keep us up to speed of what is happening over there.
OK. It is a way to talk to complete strangers from the comfort of your own webcam, but is it a chatting tool or a dangerous site?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: What in the world -- worst thing in the world to want to chat with random strangers, if you're a grownup, but look at this thing. It's called Chat Roulette, it's a rapidly growing website that randomly pops people onto the screen for you the chat with -- no names, no filters, no sign-up, just a live webcam picture and dialogue box for you to chat into.
Here is breakdown of the website. Started by 17-year-old Andre Ternovskiy, he's a high-school student from Moscow. He said he was inspired by the extensive use of Skype to chat with his friends. I understand that. The site has no business goals. The buzz around Chat Roulette spread by word of mouth only with no formal advertising, which is why you've probably never heard of it. Now some 35,000 people are online at any moment talking with complete strangers. Chat Roulette started with just one server to support the site, now it runs on seven servers in Frankfurt, Germany, apparently with some financial help from this kid's family.
Errol Barnett follows this kind of stuff, he's with CNN. Errol, you've been looking into this, you interviewed the founder of Chat Roulette. It just seems a little unusual.
ERROL BARNETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is unusual, but it has absolutely gone viral. When we first connected with Andre back in February, there were about 35,000 daily users of the site. And as you say now, that has exploded to 135,000 people around the world.
So we connected with him via webcam and I asked him that key question of why he thought a site like this was necessary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDRE TERNOVSKIY, CHATROULETTE.COM CREATOR: I do it, because, because I like to chat with people around the world to get to know other cultures, to see what people are doing all over the world. And I have always had friends from other countries who I have been chatting to through Internet. And I thought it would be great to make a site to create people all over the world together to get to know people from other countries and other cultures.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARNETT: You see, Ali, he sounds innocent enough. He just wants people to connect around the world and he's interested in other countries. He wants others to be able to do the same thing.
VELSHI: And I don't doubt his intentions, as you said, there's no business intention there either, although we'll talk about whether or not he's going to make some money off of this later.
The issue here is, does he get what the problem might be? Because what I get is that you can go onto this site and you can just see random people. When I checked it out, not everybody had clothes on.
BARNETT: That is right. In fact, we actually checked it out, this is us rolling the video down in the newsroom. And I connected with strangers around the world, in fact at one point I spoke to one person in Taiwan -- I don't speak Mandarin, that man did, so my intern translated things. But there are people on this site being obscene. That's the key, perhaps something he didn't intend.
And what Andre tells us is that they have a few security aspects in place. Number one, they say you should be 16 to use the page, and you can flag inappropriate content. The big question, though, is how do you enforce that.
VELSHI: Right, well there wasn't really -- I mean, I could get on it without putting any information whatsoever -- without a key stroke.
BARNETT: That's right. That's right. And you also don't have to put your birth date, there's no e-mail verification either.
In fact, there's a group who just did a study on Chat Roulette -- that's how popular it's become. And they have found that only -- less than 10 percent on the page were being obscene, but they also found that most people were males, 87 percent.
VELSHI: I noticed that when I was on it, tended to be mostly guys.
BARNETT: People in groups, people in college dorms. Andre says that he is getting a lot of interest from business investors now. He wants to come to the U.S. in fact, a place he has never been, and he says they're planning, they're trying to figure out ways to step up the security of the site.
VELSHI: You follow this all of the time. Is this that novel that -- you interviewed him by Skype. I mean, you can get in touch with anybody you need to, but you kind of have to have some kind of interaction that says, Errol, would you like to chat with me and click yes?
BARNETT: That's right. That's right. I think the novelty of this is the mystery surrounding it.
VELSHI: The randomness.
BARNETT: I mean, you probably saw this too as you click and you scroll around, there's people giggling next to their webcams.
VELSHI: And you can just click "next" and get to the next person.
BARNETT: Exactly. And you know, they would defend themselves and say, there is no identifiable information on here. We don't' know who this person is or what his location is, let's say, if there were a child predator. But that is the question. I think what this really exposes is that big digital divide between the millennials -- he's 17 years old and made this, you know, in his bedroom.
VELSHI: Look, the business guy in me admires him. I mean, I'm sitting here thinking, what a great entrepreneur. He's getting this out there, he doesn't want limitations on it. But it does really start to beg the question -- I don't think that the guy has any bad intent -- but it's the first, one of the first things that I have seen that really worries me about kids surfing, doing things on their phones without parental supervision.
BARNETT: And what parents should remember as we have conversations about Chat Roulette and other web sites, if you have those security filters on your computer at home for your kids, this is one of those websites you're going to want to have blocked if you have young kids.
VELSHI: Or at least supervised. If you think this is a great idea that there are random people your kids can chat with, maybe you should be with them when they're doing it.
I mean, it's all -- there's probably something good that comes out of it, but can be worrisome.
BARNETT: Well, this speaks to the times we live in. You know, there are so many young people that are tech savvy and can do this in their sleep.
VELSHI: When a tech savvy guy like you is too old for this stuff, you know there's a problem.
Errol, come and visit us more. You are in our building, come and visit us more.
BARNETT: Will do, Velshi. Good seeing you.
VELSHI: All right, good to see you my friend.
All right, listen, talk about the crazy things that kids do these days, a kid directing planes at one of the busiest airports in the country. I'm serious.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Running a few minutes late because of the president, so Ed Henry is coming up in just a minute. But until we see him, I'm going to give you a check of the top stories.
An air traffic controller is in big trouble after -- get this -- after allowing his son to radio instructions to pilots at New York's JFK airport. Audio clips of the transmissions are all over the Internet so the FAA says the controller and his supervisor are on administrative leave while investigators get to the bottom of this.
A Muslim scholar says suicide bombers are destined for hell. Tahir-ul-Qadri is condemning terrorism and criticizing extremists who use religion to justify violence. He has issued a 600-page fatwa or religious ruling arguing against terrorist attacks. Some extremists have interpreted the Koran to suggest that those who kill in the name of Allah will be rewarded with a place in paradise.
President Obama wants a vote in the next few weeks on health care reform. He unveiled his plan for yet another overhaul today incorporating a few republican ideas, but he says he wants an up or down vote to pass the bill with or without republican support.
And Representative Charlie Rangel is temporarily giving up his gavel as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. In a news conference just a little while ago, the 20-term New York congressman said he doesn't want his ethics controversy to jeopardize other democrats election chances. A House ethics panel has been looking into Rangel's trips, his assets, income and homes, all as possible violations of gift rules.
All right, coming up, here he is. Ed Henry is in the house, I knew he was in my state. I knew he was in Georgia, he was in Savannah yesterday mucking around in some kind of tool room --
HENRY: Did you just call me a tool?
VELSHI: No, I did not. I said you didn't know your way around the tools.
HENRY: We snuck up on you. This is a surprise planned by your producers for days now.
VELSHI: I did not know. You guys, you guys got me. So when you come back, you will find out what other surprises he has in store. "The Ed Henry Segment" right here, coming up right after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: That's it, ain't nothing like the real thing, having Ed Henry our senior White House correspondent of "The Ed Henry Segment" fame right here with me. Just for bringing him in, make sure you follow me on Twitter @AliVelshi.
Look, it's great to have you here. You are an unmade bed, man. This is the second time --
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: What's up with these cuff links? You've got the maple leaf on there?
VELSHI: I got the maple leaf, yes, yes.
HENRY: But in fairness, you asked me to wear --
VELSHI: Canadians won.
HENRY: I brought you the Canadian jersey from Adam Levine (ph) at our Washington bureau.
VELSHI: That is excellent. A fellow Canadian.
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: -- so you go the hockey thing. Robert Gibbs has not worn his yet, but sooner or later he's going to. And I got you a little present to spice up that wardrobe. I actually -- you're doing a little better than me, I got to admit.
VELSHI: Really? You got me a gift?
HENRY: Apparently, Roland Martin just e-mailed in that I have to bring it stronger.
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: Yes, yes -- well, you have Roland Martin action going on --
HENRY: Well, I got this, I thought Roland would like it.
VELSHI: He's a big pocket square guy. Oh, look at this, I know what is going on here. Hold on a second.
Oh! Look at this. Nice.
HENRY: Nice. Come on, you can splash that.
VELSHI: Look at that. Oh, yes. We are getting hoots and hollers from the newsroom.
HENRY: Well, we are getting a lot of reaction in Atlanta, and I am starting to worry -- I am getting a lot in my ear about "bromance" and stuff. I think this is going to be the last time we're going to be in person together.
VELSHI: I miss you, man. It's so good to have you here.
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: We used to be further up north, and now we have you further down south.
VELSHI: Now, we have to plan to get together. Which was great, he didn't plan this, he's in here.
HENRY: Total surprise.
VELSHI: But really it was a good surprise, because you were here in the conversation that we were having with the president laying down the law on health care. Tell me what you took away from that.
HENRY: Well, what was fascinating to me -- I wrote two words down when we were sitting there on set, which was "all in." I mean, time and time again he's had not just republicans but some fellow democrats say, you got to scale back, you got to cut back.
And when you talk to some of his top advisers, last summer during some of those town hall meetings in the low moments of this debate, there was some point when some of his advisers went to him and said, maybe we should scale back. And it was the president himself I'm told who said, no, all in, I want the big bill.
And even after various stages in this, like last Monday when they put out finally the Obama bill, if you, it was not scaled back. It was still covering 31 million people. Today, he incorporates some republican changes, but it is still the big bill, even as the republicans say you've got to scrap it, you've got to start over. He is not going with the baby steps, he's going all in.
VELSHI: End of his speech -- you know, we get an advanced copy moments before sometimes when the president speaks so you can follow along and make notes and start researching. And he added something to the end of that copy we got. He said -- I think in the copy that was released to us, he was saying, you know, I look forward to signing this bill. And then he said right at the end, let's do it.
HENRY: Right.
VELSHI: He is -- this is -- he is going to get this done.
HENRY: This is a call to arms. Because, you know, what is fascinating is so many of the debates in Washington, they're preordained. The leaders on both sides know that this is going to go down by five votes or it's going to win by five votes, they've got the whip count.
This is one where, literally, as they're going into the final stages, nobody knows how it's going to turn out. The democratic leaders cannot promise this president that they've got the votes. They can say we're going to get them, but as Dana Bash has been reporting and she was just saying right after these remarks, today they do not have votes. Even though they are lowering the threshold, instead of a super majority, just a simple majority, even then the democrats don't have it.
If they can't deliver on this, as Roland Martin was saying before, their base is going to be apoplectic. And that's why there's so much riding on this for the president.
VELSHI: Yes. You said something interesting during our coverage of this whole thing and it was that there were some people you talked to who thought that the Jim Bunning incident where he kept turning down this unanimous consent for extending unemployment benefits was somehow going to give the democrats some traction, maybe even helping them in health care?
HENRY: Well, some democrats close to the White House have been telling me in the last 24 to 48 hours that, look, that exposed in their eyes that the republicans are blocking everything the president wants to do, even unemployment benefits that people desperately need, an emergency situation. And some of these democrats are saying this showed the American people that the president's right that the republicans are blocking his health care plan.
But I'm not sure it translates, because on the Bunning thing, the reason why he gave in, he had fellow republicans like Susan Collins saying, we can't do this right now, this looks bad, and they finally gave in. On health care, the republicans don't have that fear like they did on jobs. They believe that public opinion is on their side. Again, they may be wrong --
VELSHI: Well how many time did Lamar Alexander, when he was on our air, cite a CNN/Opinion Research poll showing people not supporting this. So --
HENRY: They don't have a fear about taking this president on over health care. They have a fear about taking him on over jobs, as you saw with the Bunning and as you saw with Harry Reid's scaled back jobs bill about a week ago. A bunch of people said, oh, they're not going to get that, and I think five or six republicans ended up voting for it. They're more worried about blocking something on jobs. The republicans are not worried about trying to block something on health care.
And on top of that, you add the fact that the real problem is with the president's fellow democrats. You know, as Dana has been reporting, he still doesn't' have the vote --
VELSHI: But they could pass this if they wanted to?
HENRY: If they have the simple majority, he could pass it right now.
VELSHI: Interesting. He said he wants this vote within a few weeks and he is going to work hard to convince everybody that this is the case. Remember back to the bailout when people were calling their congressmen and their senators? I wonder if we'll see that in the next few weeks/
HENRY: We're going to see a flurry of activity.
VELSHI: Everybody starts calling in.
This is -- this is Roland Martin, Roland Martin has emailed in and he has applauded your choice of tie. It is a -- my favorite color, orange is my favorite color, it's got nice patterns and it's got a little shine. I know Roland likes that.
HENRY: I wore red sort of in honor of your Canadian jersey, so maybe Roland will understand today and I'll come up with a better one.
VELSHI: I think it's a nice -- I just don't understand how come you can't get this --
HENRY: I don't know, it keeps falling down. You guys can't even figure out the chairs on set, so -- and by the way, I've been looking all around. I see posters, this is the first time in headquarters for a long time -- posters of, you know, every show, "BACK STORY," "SITUATION ROOM."
VELSHI: I know, where's the --
HENRY: Where's the Ali Velshi poster? There's no love.
VELSHI: Yes, cause there's no name on the show. We have "The Ed Henry Segment," that's the only thing that's got a name on the show.
HENRY: I have a lot of friends who say, I'm glad that Ali let's -- you know, I'm glad that you let Ali onto your show. So I'm thinking maybe we should have an "Ali Velshi Segment."
VELSHI: You know, what? Just, toss to break. Tell them we'll be back in just a minute.
HENRY: All right. We will be back right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: All right, it's time for "The X-Y-Z of It," and I'm talking to you parents out there.
I told you this hour about something called Chat Roulette. It is a website that brings you random people, random webcams for you to chat with. When you logon to the free site -- and by the way, there is no logging on to do, you don't have to create any kind of account or give any information about yourself whatsoever, and neither do your kids. Here is where it become worrisome -- and the people on the other end of those webcams? Well, they could be anybody and they could be doing anything.
Look, I'm not in favor of excessive Internet restrictions, but I am in favor of parents getting actively involved in their kids' lives both on and offline. And a site like Chat Roulette should give all parents a real wakeup call. It is random, and random and strangers is a bad combination when it comes to your kids. If there was ever a reason to get involved in what your kids are doing on the computer, on their phones, on their Wi-Fi gadgets, this it is.
There are a lot of potential land mines on the Internet and it's up to parents to help kids navigate through them. A site like Chat Roulette has every right to exist, might even have some benefits to it, but that does not mean parents have to play roulette with their kids' online lives.
Time now for "RICK'S LIST."
