Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Why You'll be Paying More for TV; Health Care: When Goldman Sachs Talks; Widow Remembers Husband's Heroism After Chilean Earthquake; The Importance of the Census; The Ed Henry Segment: Nudity in the House; The Python Snatchers

Aired March 08, 2010 - 13:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: If you don't know who those folks are the president's saying hello to, Roll Tide. This is the University of Alabama's football team. The BCS national champions being hosted at the White House. The president saying hello to them. We'll keep an eye -- or an ear, I suppose -- on what the president is saying. For now, he's greeting the University of Alabama football champs at the White House.

All right. The folks at Nielsen say 90 percent of American households have cable or satellite TV. I would guess 100 percent of us cringe when we open those bills every month, and it's probably going to getting worse. Case in point: this weekend's Disney Cablevision dispute that left millions New Yorkers in a temporary Oscar blackout.

Disney, which owns ABC -- this is what it looked like if you were trying to watch the Oscars at the beginning in New York. Disney, which owns ABC, demanded and apparently got big bucks for the local affiliates' programming. Guess who is going to end up paying for it? Sure, for now, Disney agreed to pay it. I think you can get who's really paying for it.

Joining us for some analysis, HLN personal finance anchor Jennifer Westhoven, my good friend. Good to see you, welcome.

First of all, it is the first time we have been on the show together. But we have worked together for years, and I know you have been following this. I saw you following it today.

For everybody else in the country, what is this about?

JENNIFER WESTHOVEN, HLN PERSONAL FINANCE ANCHOR: Right. And I think a lot of people hear this and they think, New York, the Oscars, I don't care. But look, if you get pay TV, which you probably do because you're watching us on it now, then, probably, this is something that really could affect you, because any network can say to any cable company we want more money. And ultimately, that means you're going to be paying more in your cable bill.

VELSHI: Right. And we saw parts of this happen. We saw it play out earlier this year with Time Warner and Fox.

Here's the issue. They keep -- they take out ads in the paper. They argue about you should be fair to the consumer. But ultimately, one person, one group is going to end up paying for this. It's going to get passed on.

WESTHOVEN: Right. And it's going to be the consumer.

And I don't know about you, Ali. I haven't seen any official polls, but in my informal polls, I don't think anybody thinks that playing it out in public is going well for either side there.

VELSHI: Right.

WESTHOVEN: It tends to, I think, raise a lot of bitterness with people and a lot of frustration. And one of the things that comes up a lot is, when the cable companies do this, when they really put on the gloves and have a midnight ultimatum and a big game, or the Oscars at stake, then what they are drawing attention to is how many cable shows you don't care about and you're paying for.

VELSHI: And you're paying for. And this is one of those things. And whenever you look at that bill, you're always fascinated.

I think everybody thinks it's fair to pay for some amount of TV, but we're always fascinated about what we pay for. And this draws attention to that very fact.

But what I have been getting from your reporting is that it's not clear this is over. This could play out many, many more times between content providers and cable operators.

WESTHOVEN: Absolutely. And this is the third big fight we've had.

So, others have been -- say, Fox. So, you're not going to get to watch "House" or "24" every time there is some kind of show at stake. But this is something that every network can then start to charge for, and it really can add up.

We could see a lot of these showdowns. In this case, you had the FCC intervening and say please, figure this out.

VELSHI: And we were into the Oscars. So if you were in New York, it had already begun before that deal was made.

WESTHOVEN: Which is almost, you know, aside from L.A., maybe the second biggest town that cared about the red carpet show.

VELSHI: Sure. Right. And a lot of people said, why do I care if I'm not in New York. But this is the very reason, because this has played out in other places, it could start to play out in more places. Or at least --

(CROSSTALK)

WESTHOVEN: Yes. And it might not just be cable. You know, we don't know. It's all pay TV. So maybe if you've got satellite TV. We don't really know. VELSHI: Yes. Great to have you here.

WESTHOVEN: Thanks. Great to be here.

VELSHI: Jennifer Westhoven. You can catch her on HLN every morning on the -- what is it?

WESTHOVEN: "Morning Express," Robin Meade.

VELSHI: "Morning Express." I call it Robin's show, but it's "Morning Express."

WESTHOVEN: Yes.

VELSHI: And Jennifer's on it every morning.

Thank you for joining us, Jennifer.

All right. Here's what I've got "On the Rundown" right now.

Are you afraid to fill out your Census form? If you're afraid Uncle Sam is trampling on your rights, you may want to hear about this. I'll tell you why the Census is important to each and every one of you. It comes down to your community, your vote, maybe even your health.

And speaking of your health, President Obama has some things to say about insurance companies. No matter how secure your coverage is, you could be in jeopardy. If you think you're immune to raised rates or dropped coverage, think again. I'm going to weigh in on this one, too.

Plus, pythons are really putting the squeeze on Florida thanks to people who thought they would make cute pets. Now there is only one way to fight back -- bring on the guns.

All right. To make the case for health care reform, the White House has pointed out for a long time that premiums have risen faster than inflation. Competition is weak in the health insurance industry, and those two facts are, in fact, related.

Well, the administration is still making that case, but now it is citing Wall Street itself as proof. I want you to hear what Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said yesterday on the weekend shows and what President Obama said today. Note the similarities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: We just got a Goldman Sachs analyst who said that the market competition is decreasing in this country, that in the individual market, in the small group market where small employers are absolutely caught, they have no choice and they are getting increasingly frustrated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The other day there was a conference call that was organized by Goldman Sachs. You know Goldman Sachs. You have been hearing about them.

This broker said that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep on raising premiums. But because there is so little competition in the insurance industry, they're OK with people being priced out of the insurance market because, first of all, a lot of folks are going to be stuck. And even if some people drop out, they will still make more money by raising premiums on customers that they keep. And they will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: Now, by way of context, Goldman Sachs was telling its clients or investors that health insurance companies are a good bet, particularly UnitedHealth and Cigna.

I want to talk about the risks and rewards for taxpayers, for health care consumers, and, of course, politically for the White House.

Joining me to break all of that down is Shawn Tully. He's an editor-at-large at "Fortune" magazine.

Shawn, good to have you back on the show.

First of all, the president citing Goldman Sachs. Most times in the last year when the president has been talking about Wall Street, it hasn't been citing them for their great research, but the bottom line is Goldman Sachs was and still may be the gold standard on Wall Street for their research and their investments. Goldman Sachs going out and telling people that the market is so uncompetitive, that these insurance companies are a great risk because they can keep on pushing insurance rates higher and higher, and they are not going to lose money.

Do you believe that to be true?

SHAWN TULLY, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: There is no question that some of what the president and Kathleen Sebelius said is correct, that the insurance industry is not sufficiently competitive. There are enormous market shares held by the big Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans in about 40 states. They dominate almost half the market in those states. They often use pricing techniques to prevent competition and prevent discounting.

We see these problems in the market. They also have an antitrust exemptions which should be repealed, even though I know the Republicans are opposed to the repeal.

VELSHI: Tell me about that. What does that mean?

TULLY: Well, what it means is that they can share data. In other words, they can do something you could never do if you didn't have this exemption, which the small companies, the big companies could all sit and look at the same claims information that they share.

You would never share that kind of competitive information in a truly competitive marketplace. But that is not the main problem, number one.

But number two, the government is doing nothing to address the competition issue. If they really wanted to address it, they would, in these bills, enable consumers to shop across state lines where there are enormous differences in premiums. That's not in the bill.

Also not in the bill is any effort to get rid of the supply side restrictions in medicine which make it so uncompetitive. There are certificate of need laws in 35 states which say that MRIs are restricted by area, you have to drive 30 miles to the next MRI machine.

They can't compete with each other. They put restrictions on the number of hospital beds.

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: But is this being addressed in the legislation that we're dealing with now?

TULLY: No. In fact, all of the things in the legislation would make the market far less competitive by giving consumers less choice and having them spend less of their own money on health care.

The biggest problem here besides the supply restrictions and the medical market are that the third-party payer system, where consumers are consuming the product, but they are not paying for it directly with their own money -- they are obviously paying for it indirectly in the form of taxes and lower wages, but they don't really notice it. So they're encouraged to way over-consume, to not be educated about prices, because they don't get to keep what they don't spent.

Nothing is being done to address that problem. In fact, it's being made much worse.

VELSHI: What's the best answer to that, Shawn?

TULLY: The best answer is twofold -- deregulate the industry by repealing the antitrust exemption, allowing purchases across state lines, getting rid of the supply side restrictions like certificate of need laws, and then getting rid of the employer exemption for taxes so people will move to high-deductible true insurance plans so that they are spending more of their own money on insurance and they are essentially insured for catastrophic events. That would make this market much more competitive.

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: In other words, you will shop around for insurance for things that if you get really, really sick, but for things that don't involve you getting really, really sick you'll be a comparative shopper. You'll be able to go out and try and find better priced services?

TULLY: That's correct, Ali. And also, you'll take the policy with you if you change employers.

If you develop a pre-existing conditions and change jobs, you can't get insured. You should be insured because you have been paying into that policy for many years.

You should own the policy. It shouldn't depend on your employer. Your employer should not own it. The employee should own the policy and then take that policy with them to the next job. And that's what would happen if we eliminate the employer exclusion.

VELSHI: Shawn, you know so much about this, I want you see if you can, in very simple terms, explain to me and my viewer this business about not being able to work over state lines, not being able to get insurance over state lines.

What does that mean?

TULLY: Well, insurers are regulated by state. And they are not able to sell policies in neighboring states.

The reason that's true is that all of these states have totally different legislation regarding what you have to be insured for. A lot of states demand that you're insured for marriage counseling, mental health counseling, drug counseling, lots of hair transplants, spinal manipulations, all kinds of things you would never, ever choose to be insured with your own money.

Therefore, they can't allow people to shop across state lines because they would opt out of these very expensive things and buy policies that are stripped down. That's what they would choose to do, and that's what they should be allowed to do.

Another problem is what they call community rating, where in states like New York State, everyone pays the same premium no matter how old they are or what kind of health they are in, which is a subsidy for people who are older and sicker, which also, they tend to abuse their health because they don't have to pay for it. And it's a tremendous penalty on young people.

And it didn't help to insure any more people, because a lot of young people in New York State are not insured because it costs $5,000 for a 20-year-old to buy a policy in New York State and it costs $1,000 across the state, in Pennsylvania, which doesn't have community rating. So, clearly, people would shop in the states that don't have community rating and pay their true cost. That's why there is so much objection and so much resistance to allowing it across state lines.

VELSHI: All right, Shawn. Good to talk to you, as always. Thank you very much.

TULLY: Thank you, Ali. VELSHI: Shawn Tully is an editor-at-large at "Fortune" magazine, joining me from New York.

All right. It's been over a week since that earthquake hit Chile. A widow tells the amazing story of her husband, his stepson and friend who sacrificed their lives to save other people.

Karl Penhaul is standing by with that story. We'll get to him as soon as we get back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Karl Penhaul has been in Chile for us covering the aftermath of the earthquake. He's in Constitucion right now.

Karl, we watched you last week as there were aftershocks and tsunamis, but you have a remarkable, remarkable story of one man and his son's efforts to help people.

Tell us about this.

KARL PENHAUL, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think all too often, Ali, these days, especially in the media, we use the word "hero" too lightly. But from time to time, we do come across certain people, certain stories that genuinely do deserve that title. So I want you to watch this and you decide.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PENHAUL (voice-over): Mass for the survivors to honor their dead. Open air because Constitucion's church is so badly damaged. There's a roll call for the few crushed by the quake and for the many drowned by the tsunami.

Fisherman Pedro Munoz, stepson Luis Anabalon (ph) and friend Juan Padilla (ph) could have survived. Instead, they chose to sacrifice themselves to rescue others.

They had been camping on this island with scores of others. As the tsunami rolled in, the three men raced to evacuate as many as they could.

Tabita Bravo is now Pedro's widow.

"Pedro, my son, shouted, 'Women and children first!' I ran to get everybody together, but the boat was too small and there wasn't enough space for everybody," she said.

She refused a place on the first boat. Tabita's husband came back for her and nine more just before a second wave hit.

Her son Luis (ph) and family friend Juan (ph) stayed behind to organize others still stranded.

"As I looked back, I heard screams and laments. I shouted to my son Luis (ph) to run to the trees and climb up. He shouted back, 'I'm OK, mom. Never forget, I love you. I love you,'" she said.

By the time the boat reached shore a second time, witnesses say Pedro (ph) had ferried at least 20 people to safety. Tabita begged him not to go back, ,but a neighbor begged him to make a third and final trip.

"He said, 'Don't worry,' he'd be back, but he said if he didn't make it, then that was God's will. He said if he didn't try to rescue more people, then he'd always have that on his conscience."

Those would be his last words to her.

"I heard the third wave coming, destroying everything in its path. I heard ships' moorings snap. I ran up the hill, and when I looked back I realized Pedro, Luis (ph) and Juan (ph) were gone."

Chile has declared three days of national mourning. The townsfolk have hoisted flags in the degree where their homes once stood. And in the square, they take communion and remember men like Pedro, Luis (ph) and Juan (ph), fallen heroes who sacrificed themselves so others could live.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PENHAUL: It just breaks your heart to think about it. Here was Pedro Munoz, a fisherman, a man who clearly understood all about the power of the sea. But he preferred to die and die with a clean conscience than stand on the sidelines that dark morning and do nothing -- Ali.

VELSHI: It breaks your heart on one level and it renews your faith in humanity on another that a man knew the choice might and likely would cost him his life, and he still made that choice to save one more person, Karl.

Karl, what is the situation with those people whom you are standing in front of? What's going on behind you?

PENHAUL: Well, this area where I'm standing, here in the town of Constitucion, this, in fact -- the sea is over there and the tsunami rolled in here. Believe it or not, houses stood alongside a main riverfront street here. This was a populated area, but as you can see, all that's left is piles of debris. The people, though, have hung Chilean flags above the piles of debris, a kind of reflection of their determination to rebuild.

Now, what they say is that the government has given them a little aid, but not enough to meet their needs. But the uplifting part here, Ali, is that ordinary citizens from other towns have simply loaded aboard pickup trucks and other vehicles stuff that they have.

It might be fruit, it might be a few bags of noodles or a bag of blankets. And they brought them down here to Constitucion to give them out to people in need.

We have seen old ladies that have come with boxes of grapes to hand out and we've seen young people who have come with hammers and screwdrivers and are building people's homes. These people aren't waiting for a government to do it for them. They are standing side by side and shoulder to shoulder. And as that flag behind me shows, they are determined to rebuild -- Ali.

VELSHI: Remarkable.

Karl Penhaul in Constitucion, Chile.

We'll stay up to speed with what is going on there through you. Karl, thank you so much.

That's Karl Penhaul.

All right. We're going to take a break. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

VELSHI: All right. Kareen Wynter is live in Los Angeles now. She is wrapping up the Oscars that she was covering and watching last night.

Kareen, after everything, all the dust has settled, what are your thoughts?

KAREEN WYNTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you're about to see. We have some amazing highlights, but Ali we spoke the last hour about this, the ratings and the fact that the show, according to some critics, was a little bit lackluster.

Well, this may surprise you. The numbers are in, as we like to say. And guess what? Last night's telecast, OK, the highest watched in five years.

VELSHI: Wow.

WYNTER: Forty-one million viewers -- a little surprising -- compared to the previous year, when Hugh Jackman hosted. Then it was 36 million. But, Ali, Oscar wasn't the only one who came out on top.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WYNTER (voice-over): The lights, the cameras, the action. It's why nearly 2,000 journalists flock to the red carpet to capture the glamour and millions of people around the world tune in to watch the drama unfold at the Academy Awards. Oscar's biggest showdown, Best Picture.

TOM HANKS, PRESENTER: And the winner is -- "The Hurt Locker."

WYNTER: The small budget movie with a huge impact blew out nine other Best Picture contenders to take home the night's top prize. MARK BOAL, PRODUCER, "THE HURT LOCKER": This was really truly honestly never part of anything we even imagined in our wildest dreams.

WYNTER: In all, "The Hurt Locker" swept six categories, including Best Director. Kathryn Bigelow made history by becoming the first woman ever to win a directing Oscar.

KATHRYN BIGELOW, BEST DIRECTOR: There's no other way to describe it. It's the moment of a lifetime.

WYNTER: In the acting face-off, Sandra Bullock won Best Actress for playing a tough talking mother in "The Blind Side."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDRA BULLOCK, ACTRESS: You threaten my son, you threaten me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BULLOCK: Did I really earn this or did I just wear you all down?

WYNTER: Bullock emotionally shared the honor with her fellow nominees, including Meryl Streep, who received her record 16th Oscar nomination as Julia Child in "Julie and Julia" and with whom Bullock has had an ongoing faux feud.

BULLOCK: I thank you so much for this opportunity that I share with these extraordinary women and my lover, Meryl Streep. Thank you.

WYNTER: After Jeff Bridges, widely considered the front runner in the Best Actor race, finished first and won his first Oscar for his performance as a hard drinking country singer in "Crazy Heart."

Bridges remembered his late parents whose footsteps he followed into acting.

JEFF BRIDGES, BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE: I feel an extension of them. You know, this is honoring them as much as it is me.

WYNTER: The Best Supporting Actress showdown was no surprise. Comedian Mo'Nique captured the gold with her dramatic performance in "Precious."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MO'NIQUE: What real women do, real women sacrifice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WYNTER: Mo'Nique paid tribute to the first African-American awarded an Oscar.

MO'NIQUE, BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: I want to thank Miss Hattie McDaniel for enduring all that she had to so that I would not have to. WYNTER: Austrian actor Christoph Waltz took home the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work in Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds."

CHRISTOPH WALTZ, BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Oscar and Penelope -- that's an uber bingo (ph).

WYNTER: So, where do the stars celebrate Oscar gold? First stop, the Governor's Ball.

SUSAN GESTON, JEFF BRIDGES' WIFE: Now we celebrate.

JEFF BRIDGES, BEST ACTOR: Yes. Now -- there you go.

SANDRA BULLOCK, BEST ACTRESS: I don't know how I came home with Oscar.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WYNTER: So, Ali, there you have it, all the big winners. And it's really a testament going back to "The Hurt Locker" to the fact that you don't have to gross zillions of dollars at the box office to take home best picture.

VELSHI: Right. Although the zillions of dollars that James Cameron spent on "Avatar" certainly was eye candy. It was fun to watch.

WYNTER: A fascinating film.

VELSHI: Kareen, good to see you, as always. Thanks very much.

Kareen Wynter.

WYNTER: Thanks.

VELSHI: All right.

When we come back, we're going to go to the Severe Weather Center. There's Jacqui. She's getting ready to tell us about how the weather is warming up, but there are in fact more storms on the way. We'll tell you about them as soon as we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right. We've got weather with Jacqui.

(WEATHER REPORT)

VELSHI: When we come back, something you have to contend with one way or the other. It's Census time. You will be getting a Census form pretty soon. It's not all that complicated, but it's creating a bit controversy. I'm going to talk to the guy in charge of it to find out what you're supposed to do, what they use it for and maybe allay some of your fears and suspicions.

Stay with us. That's when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right, the 2010 U.S. Census is arriving soon at a mailbox near you. It's not easy to count everybody in the United States. It is mandatory, though, that you fill out a Census form. I want to start by breaking down why the Census in important.

The Census counts are used to determine how much money your city or state may get. More than $400 billion is at stake, and that is money that goes to build schools or hospitals, highways, funding programs like Medicaid.

Your vote is actually affected by the Census because your state could gain or lose Congressional seats. Your political district could be redrawn based on population shifts or growth.

This year's Census will have ten questions, but there is controversy. Some people are afraid to fill it out because of what they fear the government might do with it.

Well, we've got the guy to answer that question, let's find out more about all of this. I'm joined here by Robert Groves, he's the director of the Census Bureau.

Thank you for being with us here in Atlanta.

ROBERT GROVES, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU: Great to be here. Thank you.

VELSHI: You're excited about this. You're not thinking this is controversial. You're thinking this is good, we are getting information.

GROVES: Well, this is something this country has done every ten years since 1790. Thomas Jefferson had the job before me. And we do this because it's in the Constitution. It's mandated.

VELSHI: All right, it's mandated. It's supposed to be -- by law you have to fill it out, but last time around, 72 percent returned it or so we think. What happens if you don't fill out the Census?

GROVES: We don't stop at that. We urge you to return it for one very important reason -- for every one percentage point of the households that return it, we save $85 million in salaries of sending people out. So if you don't return it, we send someone out. If you want to do something about the federal deficit, this is the one thing you can do.

VELSHI: Fill it out, because you guys are going to keep on coming after people who don't.

GROVES: That's right.

VELSHI: Does anybody ever go to jail for not filling it out? GROVES: It is mandated by law, was mandated since 1790. We don't tend to prosecute. We tend to describe the benefits of participating rather than the prosecution.

VELSHI: Sure. All right, well we have questions from people about some things they need to know about. We want to talk about what some of those controversies are. Stay with me. Let's take a quick break and we'll come back and continue this conversation about why the Census is important to you.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Better than looking at the two of us. Let's take a look at some NASCAR racing. There is a sponsorship, the U.S. Census.

Oh, we don't have it.

You guys are sponsoring a car, taking out ads. People have seen the ads. I think it's interesting because the IRS doesn't take out ads convincing me to pay my taxes but that, too, is mandatory.

What's the issue? Why do you have to convince people that this is a good thing? I remember sitting around the table doing the Census with my family when I was a kid thinking, this is really exciting. This is really fun. Clearly, not everybody shares my enthusiasm about this.

GROVES: I think one of the charges to us has to do with the fact that we only do this once every ten years. We have been tracking -- actually, several survey organizations have been tracking awareness of the Census, and it goes down from the Census all throughout the decade. We are at the lowest point ever.

VELSHI: I see.

GROVES: We did a survey recently and only 10 percent of the population knows that a this is the Census coming up. So we have a big problem. We have to get the word out that the Census is coming. We have to remind the population that this is an important thing to do. It was a cornerstone of democracy. The Founding Fathers wanted this to happen and then that there is a lot of money involved as well as political power.

VELSHI: What's the main concern you get from people why they don't want to fill it out?

GROVES: I think there are memories of the long form of the Census.

VELSHI: Right.

GROVES: That doesn't exist anymore.

VELSHI: It's ten questions. GROVES: This is a ten questions. This is the shortest questionnaire in my lifetime that we've ever used. So that's one thing we need to dispel.

There are concerns about what happens to their data when they -- what happens to your answers. And there we have a good story about a strong confidentiality law that protects the data.

VELSHI: There are some people who are concerned, particularly as it relates to immigrants, illegal immigrants. There are some people who say why are you even measuring them and others who feel, if I'm not legal in this country, why would I fill one out?

GROVES: Yes, two great questions. On the first one, if you go way back to 1790, the first Census Act, March 1st, 1790, they said we're going to count everybody. Since that time, every ten years, we have counted everyone -- citizens and noncitizens -- who are living in the country. There is nothing new about it. Congress has taken this up from time to time and has always upheld this notion that we count everyone.

Now for those new to the country who are saying, why should I do this and in fact, should I be afraid of revealing characteristics of the household, we have a good story as well. Because we have counted everyone and we are a nation of immigrants, there are laws that have been put in place to make sure those people especially are assured that if they give information to the Census Bureau, this nonpartisan statistical agency, it doesn't go anywhere else. So I can truthfully say that it won't go to any enforcement agency at the local, state or national level.

VELSHI: You measure people who are incarcerated, people who are in prisons in the place they are incarcerate incarcerated, not their home.

GROVES: The rule that we've used -- and in fact, this was in the 1790 Census Act, too -- is that we measure people in those terms, in their usual abode. That means, where we usually live. So we count prisoners where they usually live, in prison. We count college students where they live -- usually in dormitories or off-campus housing, not at their parents' house.

VELSHI: Interesting, OK.

GROVES: We do that --

VELSHI: Cause we got a question. Michelle asked us on Facebook, "Do you know how they do things if my daughter is in college and lives on campus in my state, but her home is used her main address?" Does she do it at school or --

GROVES: Does it at school. Do it at school. Unless you're living at home as a college student with your parents and commuting, do it where you usually live -- dorm or off-campus housing.

VELSHI: Let's talk about some of the criticisms about the cost involved in this, cost overruns. You've heard them. How are you handling budgets and costs? Obviously, people are sensitive to that.

GROVES: Absolutely. This is an enormously expensive operation because we use lots of people to do this. We're going to hire about 700,000 people between May and July to follow up on nonresponse. So it is expensive. I'm worried about that expense.

And when I came in July of 2009 into my position, we had just experienced an overrun. We scrubbed that. We figured out what was wrong. One of the big things that we did wrong was anticipating the labor market of 2000.

The applicant pool we are getting now because of the unemployment rate is fantastic in its size and it's richness and it's experience. So we can do operations more cheaply with fewer people and we have adjusted our operations since then. And since then, we are on time, on budget.

VELSHI: And I like what you said, that if you're worried about what you can do about the federal deficit, send in the form and save you guys the money of sending somebody out to have knock on my door and find me.

GROVES: $85 million for every one percentage point.

VELSHI: Excellent. All right, very good. Let's try and beat what we did in 2000 with 72 percent.

Robert Groves, pleasure to talk to you. Thanks for being with us.

GROVES: It's great to be here.

VELSHI: There are some crazy allegations behind the scene on Capitol Hill. Ed Henry is standing by. He's got "The Ed Henry Segment" coming up. Plus, word on the street is that Ed has a brand new suit. Stay with us and we'll tell you all about it.

He's showing it to us. Look at that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right, there he is -- well, Ed Henry isn't there yet, but there's his graphic. Not only does Ed have a name to his segment, he has his own graphic with his name on the segment. There he is at the White House.

Ed, good to see you, by the way.

ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Then you know you've made it. If you have a graphic, man, you've made it.

VELSHI: It follows naturally that you would have a new suit.

HENRY: What do you think? I got it for you partly. I wanted to show it off. You have great new ties and I haven't gotten a tie from you yet. VELSHI: I'm going to give you one in person, like you did for me.

HENRY: Surprise us in D.C.

VELSHI: Put my name on security.

All right, we saw the president last week at his big speech. He was pretty fired up. Let's talk about that a little bit.

What's going on with this health care push?

HENRY: I think the key today was when he was in the Philadelphia area he was even more fired up. I mean, last week he was trying to say, here's the final stretch. He really was making this the final push after the recent summit when he's reaching across the aisle to republicans. This time, he was really slamming them and saying, they had a chance, they were in power for more than eight years, what did they do about health reform.

And Arlen Specter, who is the party switcher, now a democrat, was there with the president. He told reporters afterwards, this is the most fiery he's seen the president on this issue. He was praising him, but at the same time was pointing out he wishes he'd done this sooner and said the president really should have come out this fired up for the State of the Union when more people were paying attention.

And so, I think that is really the big question. Even as the president sort of tries to crank it up another notch, is it too little, too late?

VELSHI: All right, I want to talk to you about something. While you and I are comparing our suits and ties, there is a conversation going on at Congress today that involves some nudity. I can't sort of get by that, but there's actually some politics involved in it.

HENRY: I could have made history with the first "Ed Henry Segment" in a bath towel, but I thought better of it and you're probably glad that I did.

But if you think about this, Congressman Massa from upstate New York, a democrat who is expected to resign later today, all kinds of chaos around him because of these sexual harassment claims and charges. He's now basically turned it around and said democratic leaders are trying to push him out because he's against health care reform. They want to throw him under the bus and whatnot.

And now he told a local radio station back in his state that basically the chief of staff here, Rahm Emmanuel, lobbied him months ago in the nude in the House gym. Take a listen to this bizarre theme that he's alleging.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, REALCLEARPOLITICS/WKPG-AM))

REP. ERIC MASSA (D), NEW YORK: They don't have shower curtains in the gym, and I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emmanuel not even with a towel wrapped around his tush poking his finger in my chest yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget. Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?

Rahm Emmanuel is son of the devil spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: "Son of a devil spawn."

HENRY: Yes, he pretty much went over the top. And when you talk to senior democrats around here and on Capitol Hill, what they say is that think the congressman is obviously just throwing all kinds of stuff out there. They don't know what's true, what's not and they find it curious that after he faces these sexual harassment allegations that all of a sudden he's throwing out allegations that the White House may be improperly lobbying him, maybe the White House and other democrats trying to push him out. They think it's all very curious.

But you don't hear that very often -- a congressman talking about being naked as a jaybird in the House gym. That kind of stops you.

VELSHI: Oh, wow. All right, a little earlier we popped in on the White House. The president was talking to the University of Alabama team, the national champs.

HENRY: It was interesting, because there was one guy missing from there, Robert Gibbs the White House press secretary.

VELSHI: He's from Alabama.

HENRY: So you'd think he might, but if you know college football you'll know that there is a big divide in that state, as there are in many states, between various teams. And Robert Gibbs actually grew up as an Auburn fan and so he skipped it. The president joked that he was hiding in his office. He didn't want to come congratulate the Crimson Tide. And I e-mailed Robert earlier and he said he just couldn't bear it, no pun intended, as in Bear Bryant, the legendary Alabama coach. So he's being good humored about it, obviously.

But this is one of those little things that every president gets to welcome in the sports champs. Sometimes not everybody around here likes that. Other times, everybody is trying to get autographs, jockeying for space. This is one day where Robert Gibbs wasn't that excited.

VELSHI: Ed, good talk to you. I really like the suit, and we really have made history on "The Ed Henry Segment" by talking about nudity on Capitol Hill.

HENRY: Please, don't take any -- you know, sometimes I criticize the way you dress. Don't take it to the extreme and follow Congressman Massa's advice, please. VELSHI: So even if you don't like what I'm wearing, wear something. That's the advice from Ed Henry.

HENRY: Yes, yes, wear something, please.

VELSHI: Thank you for that, Ed.

This is going to be a rough transition. It can grow to 12 feet or more. It's a danger to animals, rare plants, even you. Now the state of Florida has declared a war of sorts. It's python-hunting season. We'll tell you about that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right, it's hunting season in Florida on the Burmese python. There are an estimated 100,000 of them in Miami and surrounding counties. They're a threat, some people say, to animals, plants and even humans. A 2-year-old girl was killed by a python last year and experts believe the problem started when reptile-breeding facilities were destroyed during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Pet owners release them, by the way, when they get too big, because they get pretty big. And so now, any Floridian with a hunting license can hunt for these pythons over the next six-week period.

Let's bring in Ron Magill. He's a curator at Miami Metro Zoo. Ron, is that a Burmese python you have?

RON MAGILL, CURATOR, MIAMI METRO ZOO: This is a Burmese python. It is an albino version, which is basically just a color mutation, but this color mutation has also been found in the wild here in Florida.

VELSHI: All right, what's the issue? How serious a problem is this?

MAGILL: Well, it's pretty serious. I don't know if there's quite 100,000 of them in the wild, but there are certainly thousands of them. And the issue is that these snakes can get to be really over 20 feet long.

And though we tried to use the story about the sensationalizing of them -- oh my god, they're going to eat your kid or they're going to eat your pet -- that's not really the big problem. The big problem is that they are going to get into native wildlife. They're going to get into rookeries, they're going to start eating the nesting birds, they're going to start eating the native wildlife and really disrupt that chain of wildlife out there.

VELSHI: Is this the best way to control the population by issuing -- this is, I guess, the second year they are doing this hunting?

MAGILL: Yes. This is hunting season. And I have got to be honest with you, this is not going to eliminate the pythons. I don't know how much it will control the pythons. I'm questioning why they have a one-month season. Why isn't it just all year long? I mean, it's a python that doesn't belong there. It's like saying, oh this guy's a bank robber, but you know what? We're only arresting bank robbers in February so we got to let them go now. I'm trying to understand that rationale.

But the bottom line is, it's going to hopefully control it a little bit and hopefully we learn a little more about these guys so we can control them in the wild.

VELSHI: And where do you think this came from? Is it that situation where that breeding facility was burnt down or was destroyed?

MAGILL: I'll tell you what, before Hurricane Andrew there were pythons in the wild. I think the Hurricane Andrew situation just exacerbated it exponentially where you had really hundreds of these snakes got away from these breeding facilities, these pet shops, these warehouses that moved them, and that made the problem that much worse.

VELSHI: What's this python's name that you got with you?

MAGILL: This one here is Butterscotch. This is one that we use as an ambassador animal at Miami Metro Zoo.

VELSHI: Well named. Ron, good to talk to you. By the way, Rick Sanchez says to say hello to you.

MAGILL: All right, buddy.

VELSHI: Ron Magill, curator and the Miami Metro Zoo.

Stay with us. When we come back, I'm going to tell you a little about the president talking about Goldman Sachs to make his case about health care. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Time now for "The X-Y-Z of It."

Talk about strange bedfellows. Today, the president of the United States quoted a report by Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs while stumping for health care reform outside Philly. In that report, Goldman urges clients to invest in major health insurance companies United Health Group and Cigna, basically saying that competition in the health industry is so weak that the companies can increase what they charge clients without fear of losing them. It's like being the only decent restaurant in town. The place doesn't necessarily have to worry about customer courtesy because they know people still got to eat.

Many Americans insurance companies -- many Americans have insurance through their employers with these companies and the Goldman analysis suggests that employers who provide health insurance don't have enough options. That means your employer is stuck paying increased rates for your health insurance. And you can guess what happens next -- your share of premiums for your employer-provided health insurance goes up. According to the president, way faster than inflation. Now, you might be saying, wait a minute, why listen to Goldman Sachs? Weren't they at the center of Wall Street's financial meltdown? Well, yes, they were, but the reason we spent so much time in bailing them out is because Goldman is considered the gold standard when it comes to this kind of investment advice.

The point the president and his team are trying to make is that Americans who feel secure in their jobs and with employer-provided insurance may feel that fixing health care isn't that urgent, but it is because the economics of health insurance in America are so broken that you or your employer cannot walk away from a company that increases your rates by 10, 20 or in some cases more than 50 percent in a single year.

I'm going to talk about this in just a minute with "RICK'S LIST."