Focus 580; Making Health Policy in An Election Year

Good morning this is focused 580 our morning telephone talk show. My name is Jack Brighton sitting in for a regular host David Inge. Glad you could listen. Our producers are Harriet Williamson and Travis Stansell. And at the controls of Jason Croft during this hour focus 580 will talk about the politics of health care reform in June of this year the U.S. House and Senate passed the biggest expansion and overhaul of Medicare since the federal government program was created in 1965. The legislation would cost 400 billion over the next 10 years and would create a major new prescription drug benefit for the 40 million Americans covered by Medicare. But if you are one of the many people struggling to pay rising drug costs don't pop the champagne cork just yet. The house in the Senate passed different versions. Some would say visions of the Medicare overhaul and right now they're in conference bogged down by surprise partisan disagreement. What happens next what effect does the coming election have on this process and what role does the media play in the making of health policy under these very political circumstances. Our guest for this hour is a reporter who has covered national politics including the health care reform battles

in Congress for the past 18 years. Robin Toner is a senior writer in the Washington bureau of The New York Times. She was the national political correspondent from one thousand eighty nine through the election of 1992 becoming the first woman to hold that position at the New York Times after the 1992 election she focused on the Clinton administration's national health care reform effort. And then the Republican Congresses Contract with America. She also served as chief of correspondents on the national desk and as senior congressional correspondent and has written widely for The New York Times other sections including the Times Book Review and The New York Times Magazine. Since 1999 Robin Toner has been reporting on the intersection of politics and policy on domestic issues including Medicare and healthcare in general. If you are a reader of The New York Times you've read a lot of her work and we're glad to have her with us this morning as we talk with Robin Toner You are welcome to join the conversation all you have to do is call us the number around Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have a toll free

line anywhere you hear us around the Midwest here or if you're listening online anywhere in the U.S. 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 and Robin Toner is here in town she spoke yesterday at four o'clock at an event sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study on health care and Social Welfare. And we're glad to have her with us here in the studio. Glad to be here. Thanks for being here. Maybe we could begin by talking about where things stand with the Medicare legislation. It's a big. I mean it is a big story but I wonder if people haven't really you know since the poll in 1994 maybe haven't haven't felt you know brave enough to follow. It's a big story and it's a complicated story. And the challenge of both writing about and and following a story like this is that it goes on and on and on sometimes you know a lot of people who read The New York Times and read other newspapers at the end of June I think it was when they passed

the first versions of the bill in the House and the Senate probably thought that. Within a very short period of time the you know it would be signed into law and we'd have a new Medicare bill. You know there's but there's a lot of twists and turns before that happens and they're in conference right now. As you mentioned at the start the House and the Senate passed really different versions of the bill. I think that the White House was just really eager to get something going. And they really pushed them to get something out so they could go to conference which is basically representatives from each chamber getting together and trying to negotiate a bill a final bill. It's very much up in the air right now they've got real big divisions. Now this was an issue that President Bush campaigned on. It was one of his big things that he wanted to do wanted to make happen in Congress his Medicare reform and a prescription drug benefit. Yeah I think they very much want to do this bill but particular before the election really kicks in.

It's you know the conventional wisdom in Washington is it's hard to do something big in an election year meaning next year because you just get such partisanship and you get so many people so dug in. I think they would really like to do it. And I think that's why they really pushed it. President Bush did campaign on this he promised to do it. The Republicans control the House and the Senate and the White House. And I think that there's some anxiety in the Republican Party that if they don't produce a bill voters are going to have some questions next year. So what are the differences between the House and Senate versions. A lot of the differences really come down to how much you want to open Medicare up to private health plans. The House bill because of the nature of the house because it's so much more conservative and because whatever party controls a majority in the House has much more control over how legislation moves the bill there was pretty much written by Republicans

and it reflects a vision of Medicare in which basically you have a lot more private health plans involved and a traditional fee for service Medicare. You have the right to stay with it but the program will be competing with these private health plans directly eventually. The Senate bill was much more of an attempt to strike a compromise with Democrats. It was largely drafted by moderate Republicans and it has it. It reflects a continued strong role for government in both providing the drug benefit of private plans don't come in in a region the government will provide the drug benefit. And also it's much more gentle. I think most people would say in the way it moves towards competition in the program. So the conservatives in the House in particular have problems with the Senate version of the bill. Can you talk about some of the this is gotten bogged down in ideology essentially. You really has I think I mean I think there are really fundamentally different worldviews here. We talked a little bit at the University speech yesterday

about about this. Right. When you look at these kind of these programs Social Security and Medicare they are they were created in the case of Medicare in the Great Society in the case of Social Security in you know the New Deal. And they really are kind of basic government social insurance programs and very traditional. And you know haven't changed kind of fundamentally in a long time. The Republican vision of Medicare and Social Security would have more private market forces involved. They say they would like to offer the elderly more choices more flexibility. Democrats on the other hand look at this and see it as an attempt to privatizing programs and expose the elderly to a lot more risk whether it's the risk of you know not being able to afford. You know plan is good is what you have right now or whether it's a risk of putting part of your savings into the stock market and not

doing so well. So I mean it is a fundamentally different vision and it's going to be hard to strike a compromise in this conference committee are some of the House Republicans essentially saying we don't believe that Medicare is something that the government has a right has a role I mean that this is the type of program that we are trying to get the U.S. government out of. They wouldn't go that far. No. I mean what they would say though is that we need to have more flexibility more choice. You know most Republicans are in the House are very careful to say if you want to stay with traditional Medicare you can stay with traditional Medicare. But if you don't if you would like to stay with them you know if you would like to go to a managed care plan or any number of private health plans and you want to have that right too and we ought to structure the marketplace so that you have full freedom and full choice. OK one of the other split seems to be between rule and urban representative. The plan would play out in very different ways where the fear is that it would play out in

different ways. Yeah rural people from rural areas are very skeptical that these private health plans will actually come in and compete for their business I mean the experience of a lot of these members of the House and Senate from rural areas is that you know I mean Medicare has had a Medicare HMO you know available in recent years but they've largely been in suburban and urban areas. And I think the fear of a lot of legislators in both parties from from rural areas is that you know that that their constituents will be left out in this that you move to a system that just fundamentally doesn't work in the rural areas and so they're digging in on that understandably and you know it's worth remembering that rural you know legislators from rural areas have a lot of power still in the house in the Senate a lot in particular in the Finance Committee. A lot of the details of the plan are in the prescription drug coverage and

some of the stories that I've read seem to reflect a lot of confusion exactly how how this would play out that that it's so complicated that it's really hard to understand is is there a way to explain it to make it understandable. It's pretty complicated I have to say. And that's another big concern I think. As as they move towards kind of the conference committee and trying to figure out what should be in the final plan because I think a lot of members in the Senate and the House are worried that this will get out. You know that you know if they are successful this will get out to older Americans and you know any of us have a lot of us let's say who have to make decisions on health insurance get lost. OK. It's you know open enrollment period is often a difficult experience for a lot of working Americans. Yes. And I think a lot of legislators are worried that it will be even more so for a lot of senior citizens who are struggling with choices and options and you know you know benefit packages and gaps in

coverage and premiums would be a whole new confusing world for them. Well there's 40 million Americans involved in Medicare. And I guess one of the questions is. Would offering a prescription drug benefit whether it be through the government standard plan or through a private plan. With that in some sense create a situation where people who are already have coverage for prescription drug prescription drug benefits through their retirement plan would then those those companies offering those benefits say OK well Medicare is covering this so more people are going to be on Medicare essentially through at least as far as prescription damage. I mean that's a that's a that's that is a fear and that is a problem when you're making health policy when you're offering you benefits you don't want to crowd out as expression people use you know existing private plans that are often quite good. Right. I mean so you know you don't want people to lose coverage as a result of you

offering coverage and so they are trying to figure out how not you know how to put certain incentives in so that these retiree plans don't drop out and then reading the coverage that seems like you know that wasn't thought of it initially that well you know the problem is when you make when you're making legislation you know it's like. They thought of it but in the push to get something through you know so that they could get to this next level I mean there's a lot of times when you're passing legislation in the first go round there's a lot of thought like we'll deal with that conference we'll deal with that conference we'll deal with that company which is why the conference gets so hard because they didn't want the the train to go off track you know they didn't want to spend a lot of time focusing on one little thing that would then kind of derail the whole process because they really are under the gun. The president was putting a lot of pressure on them. OK we have a caller to talk with let's include them in a conversation. And we would welcome others let me just reintroduce our guests were talking this morning with Robin Toner. She covers national politics from the Washington bureau of The New York Times. She's in town here to speak here

on the campus of the University of Illinois and we've got her here in the studio talking about politics and health care reform and perhaps the election as well if you'd like to join us the number 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free elsewhere. 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. We'll go first to a listener in Belgium on line number four. Good morning. You know I live on the edge of America. It's very small. Only text 1 and we have what you hear a lot of it from the rural areas because doctors don't want to come here. But the question. I have news 10 years ago the Clintons tried to do this and the very people who are in office now who are in control now just screamed it down and said we don't want it. Now they come in and they're pushing the situation for health reform that doesn't seem to really help as much as it should. And

we're the only nation in the world who is developed that doesn't at least give some minimal health care to older people. Why is it that it seems that in so short sighted. Well we haven't even talked about the uninsured which I think is what you're talking about. I'm talking about anybody ma'am and so you know everybody should have health care. That's right it's rich or poor. Yeah I mean yeah and in fact there's there are 40 million 41 million Americans who don't have any health insurance. I don't know what to tell you I mean health health you know providing health care providing health coverage to people whether it's drugs to people in the Medicare program or whether it's basic coverage is and is expensive and it's divisive and there's a lot of disagreement about how to do it. And the country's wrestled with this issue for a very long time and I think it will wrestle with it for a long time to come. Well then if this administration has no qualms of getting

godly sums to fight a war that is totally unpopular why. But if this is one of the debates that's going on in Congress right now. Thanks very much. Thanks for the call. Well in many ways this again is a reflection of this ideological split or a vision of what America is or what the national government what the role of the national government is in America. That is you have you know the great society and you know the sort of idea that the government should provide some basic social safety mechanisms and then the idea that really people are best served by establishing fair ground rules and letting you know the market essentially provide solutions. Let let free enterprise take over. Yeah and I think that you know Americans historically have been very kind of they have a very ambivalent attitude towards government more so than than

in other countries I think that in some other countries. And I think that you know it's not surprising that we would end up with the kind of mixed system that we have because it is does reflect something in the American psyche. I want to talk about some other issues but just to sort of follow up on this particular Medicare reform or overhaul or revision where we want to call it I guess the question is what would the prescription drug benefit do for people would it actually reduce people's out-of-pocket costs with prescription drugs especially given that costs are rising so quickly. I mean do we understand how that would actually play out. There is a benefit package that that is is being put together so far and it would it would not cover as a rule. What what I think a lot of workers typically expect it's not as big or generous a package. The reason I think is just purely cost. They structured the people who wrote the

bills in both houses structured what they thought was the best they could do with the money available. It you know it does have gaps in coverage. But I think the people who you know there are people I'm trying to remember now it's roughly like a 50 percent co-pay for certain expenses and then there's a gap in coverage. And then when you reach kind of a cap you know if there's a catastrophic protection I guess is what I'm trying to say so that when you when you get really high drug costs then it really kicks in. OK. Well we'll see what happens in Congress within the conference. We have another caller to talk with. Let's include them in a conversation a listener in Urbana on line number one. Good morning. Good morning. I thought that the people who are criticizing the Medicare prescription bill its main criticism is that there is no cap on what the pharmacies of the pharmaceutical companies can charge.

And that means that the pharmaceutical companies could charge anything they want and totally bankrupt the Medicare system. And the act as I understand it there is something in the Medicare prescription bill which says the skeptically that Medicare may not negotiate price with the pharmaceutical companies. And so this feels to me more like a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies than a true Medicare reform bill. In fact every time I hear the word reform my price of everything goes up. So could you tell me who you are. Ma'am are you speaking for. Are you a policymaker or are you part of the administration. No no no. I'm sure our guest is a reporter for The New York Times So really her her role is as someone who reports on these issues as opposed to making you know

policy. I see. OK thank you. So would somebody address that. Is it indeed the case that this bill with the physically prohibit Medicare from negotiating prices and presumably negotiating lower prices with the pharmaceutical companies. You're right. One of the main criticisms of this bill is that it doesn't include any cost real costs. That's what I'm looking for cost containment. I mean it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't allow the government to to step in and set prices for Medicare population now. Except it does put caps on what Medicare will pay for people people us and we'll have higher co-pays. Then in other situations and also for Medicare people would have to participate and some of us have

pharmaceutical insurance. That sounds a whole lot better to us then and a blanket. Medicare would be you know this is a voluntary program ma'am you know. Oh yeah it yeah yeah. You know the debate over prescription drug costs prices is a very big debate that's going on not just in Washington right now obviously but in states around the country. And you know I mean one side says that it's just not fair that the prices are so high in this country compared to what they're charged in other countries. And the other side says you know the side that defends the pharmaceutical industry basically says the reason that we have all these extraordinary drugs right now is because of research and development and if you you know artificially hold the prices down low then you will not get the R&D that will produce these these wonder drugs. How much of the research and development that the pharmaceutical companies spend much of that do they spend and how much of that does

the American taxpayers spend through grants to these companies. That's part of the debate. So do you know how much I don't have the data fragments and on medicine research post right there with the pharmaceuticals and through the universities like the University of Illinois which does a lot of federal research for the pharmaceutical companies. Yeah I don't have the data in front of me but as you say that's a big debate as well. Sounds like another focus 580 talk to you. Thanks very much for the call. Well I did want to ask though about the lobbying by the pharmaceutical companies. Obviously they're very interested in this legislation and they would be pretty vocal I would guess in representing their interests obviously. You know this is the one thing about making the health legislation is that there's always a lot of interest groups around. Yeah and the pharmaceutical industry is definitely the 800 pound gorilla. So. So Congress is going to listen you know and there are legitimate

things to listen to like you say the you know the development of new drugs which we depend on for advancement of our medical care. Right right I mean there are you know there are two sides to this issue. You know well we have another caller more than two. I promise we'll get right to this call but one more question on that issue. Here in Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich has essentially suggested that the state of Illinois buy prescription drugs from Canada which is fascinating. Yeah it is fascinating. I mean the whole you know the whole debate over our prices compared to Canada prices I think is one of the most kind of. It's very hard for a lot of members of Congress to understand why that is the case. And you know in fact a lot of people have been going across the border to buy drugs in Canada. Well have you looked into that why. Why is there such a price discrepancy. Is it an issue that you can talk about. Yeah it's it's complicated and I don't feel confident that you know you know I'll take

that up another time on the show. So we have a couple callers waiting let's go next to a listener in Chicago on line number four. Good morning you're on focus 580. You like to follow up on the other woman's question. I understand why she asked if your guess was a politician. I just find it appalling that someone has to call in and ask a question that assumes the journalist as the expert should have mentioned in the beginning. And as I listen to this conversation so many things have been fine ness or and we're not being really informed. I don't know whether your guest feels that we can't cope with information what I think is a difference between information and interpretation and I guess I think that's an interpretation to point out that there's no doubt that the pharmaceutical companies don't have a cap. That's information we can interpret this any way we want to the interpretation would be that it's a giveaway to people who've contributed to the

politicians campaign. But to tell us that the pharmaceutical companies will not that the government will not be able to know goes straight with the pharmaceutical companies is not interpretation that's simply fact right especially as we should have talked about that in the beginning. Then I would really hope that she will stop simply saying this is a question for debate and give us the sides of that. OK what. The two sides of the debate just give us the information. I'm not directing this towards your guest specifically but I have heard so many journalists come on and be so uninformed about what they're supposed to be the specialists about. So I would really ask her to feel free to give us information. We can take it. Thank you. All right well thanks for the comment. You know I think that you know it's difficult as a journalist necessarily to to give any you want to be careful you don't spin any of the facts that you're giving obviously.

And what would you say to that that caller in that case you know there's a lot of things I could have said at the start. Sure. That's one of them. So yeah you know. Yeah that's yeah. Well I mean just the fact that you say that you stated that for example one of the things that you just said is the pharmaceutical lobby is sort of the 800 pound gorilla in this debate. Now that's a statement of fact. And one could interpret that in a number of ways and we hope the listeners are intelligent enough to make their own interpretations. That's one of the things that we try to give people credit for on the show is that they're intelligent enough to do that. Is that your assumption when you're writing about this stuff. Yeah I mean look I mean as as a journalist for a newspaper you know I try. Yeah I try to present both sides of the argument. Obviously the last two callers have very strong feelings about this. There are people maybe who are calling in now who have strong feelings on the other side of the issue. I try to you know kind of capture the debate.

OK fair enough. We'll go next to a listener in southeastern Illinois and one number one. Good morning you're on focus 580. Yeah couple of things. One thing that I thank you as well I asked the first question. I've had a question for you and these discussions about prescription drugs and I promise I never hear anybody mention the programs of some of the drug companies. Half are those are legitimate programs I mean does the media khabar and get publicized. I mean fire is running commercials saying that there are guys supposed for eyes senior citizens or maybe I don't know there's a means faster when they don't go in detail but they have some kind of a program that or I'm glad to see a $15 a month they will provide the drug. Do you know anything about those that type of programming or anything about Pfizer's program. I know there's a variety of. Drug company programs out there

and obviously there's also you know the states have certain programs that vary from state to state to provide some assistance for people who are really against it. I think this is that as I understand it this is the drug companies themselves. Right right right right. Step in of course the idea I'm sure that this is that their purpose is to avoid the government doing it but I just I know I never hear any coverage about these programs I mean are they limited to just a very few drugs where our view is that you know any details at all about the Pfizer program for example. I don't. OK. One other thing that I think is a is that should be taken care of whatever reality they do and the prescription drug department and that is that as I understand it from probably listening to to this station. Maybe NPR or maybe even focus my baby.

There are many conditions which in the large cities where there are skilled surgeons available and and hospital facilities are taken care of by by surgery heart condition isn't that sort of thing. And the same conditions in RE and rural areas since they don't have the facilities available they handle these situations with drugs and the surgery. The Medicare coverage of the surgery in the cities but people in the rural areas that don't have the surgical facilities and are using drugs presumably are having to pay for their own drugs for so that you have two situations there where in one part of the country they are at the expense of being borne by Medicare and in another part of the country whether using a different method to beat a condition.

Individual is presumably having to pay for the drugs that let him meet the condition they have so I think they certainly should make some kind of change if they are OK. Yeah I mean that's an interesting argument. There is a hope I think. Among people pushing for this legislation on the Hill that it will be in many cases you know covering these drugs will be cost effective over the long haul in terms of preventing unnecessary hospitalizations and surgeries and so on. We're past the midpoint here with Robin Toner She is senior writer in the Washington bureau of The New York Times. She covers national politics including health care. From there and we're talking about a variety of issues in particular the Medicare reform effort underway in Congress and we may get on to some other topics with regard to national politics. We have one caller waiting and welcome others 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free

800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. We have a listener next on line number two in Urbana. Good morning on focus 580. Yeah. Just comment to question or comment is in reference to the first caller who was wondering why. We don't have national health insurance and I don't think there's any question that the reason why is because certain groups the conservatives basically want to want to squeeze themselves into the picture as middlemen because of nonprofit benefit health benefit hurts their pocketbooks by limiting the size of their livelihood. I mean it's a lot of this. I mean that's the only reason you talked you mentioned the possibility that the truth the truth you made a true statement by saying that people don't like

ambivalent about government. But. A lot of that is due to the destructive disruptive and destructive role these same people take in Congress to destroy programs to make them you know unworkable and the name of compromise. But anyway I've got two questions One is what's new about. Is there anything new in terms of fraud investigation and the Medicare program as it is now and to this one kind of a personal one. Do you know if the idea of letting a retiree's use their Medicare benefits in other countries where there isn't more they might retire to have has any legs at all.

And I'll hang up and and listen thank you. I think the questions yeah. I don't know about the second part of your question frankly and sensually but going I withdraw to yeah I'm not in Medicare. You know I mean it's I think there's something new going on. I mean it's kind of an ongoing battle I suppose on the issue. OK fair enough. Well I have some of the questions been a defer to another caller waiting on number one in Urbana. Good morning you're on folks 580. Yes that was the lady who called earlier and I was very pleased to hear that this is going to be a voluntary program. And my husband just pointed out to me that although it starts out being voluntary our insurance companies and we do have pharmaceutical clause in our insurance can decide as they did with Medicare in general. Well if Medicare pays then let's have Medicare

pay first and then maybe if there's anything left over it we will consider paying for it. And I believe the original Medicare when they passed the bill was that first the insurance companies would pay and Medicare would pick up the rest. But the insurance lobby was so huge and made so many contributions that instead of having insurance pick up first and then Medicare. It rests in reverse. Yeah I don't like to make another point which is you know writing and speaking and I wish people would stop talking about how this is Medicare reform. It's not reform. It's a word that politicians use when they want. It's really a you know it's really a spin. It's not sad. It's spin. This is not reform. This is has nothing to do with reform and using the word reform just gives in to their spin.

OK. Well I think wish people would just stop using the word. All right well I've been using that word throughout this hour. Robin what do you think. We actually don't use the word reform Medicare reform as as a rule because of just what the lady is talking about. Yeah there is a sense of that you're kind of putting a steel a seal of approval on something and so every once in a while maybe when the word reform will slip into the paper but by and large we are encouraged to steer away from it. OK well I'm guilty of spin but thanks. The problem is it's very hard to come up with like a another word for it. Overhaul and restructuring are kind of clumsy words but alteration perhaps doesn't have the ring to it. Well speaking of spin the 2004 presidential election is really kind of getting underway now isn't it. It really is absolutely. Yeah I mean you can really feel in Washington people's attention suddenly is what's going on in Iowa New Hampshire on the trail. Well and tonight I know is tomorrow night the Democratic candidates debate with Wesley Clark for the first time in his joy and I'm noticing at least one poll

shows him now the front runner among the Democratic candidates. Yeah I mean you know he's definitely scrambled the race at the moment. Now you know that was one thing when you've been involved in politics for a long time as you know that pulls at the stage of the game can change and change and change a million times before the end so. It's too soon to say but it's definitely interesting right now. Yes. Yes well and what I'm hearing a lot of is people kind of wondering what the Democratic candidates are going to do to distinguish themselves not only from each other but from the Republicans on there. There are couple cases where you know the candidates have clearly disapproved of you know President Bush's policies in Iraq and in a number of other areas but I think a lot of people are still wondering what's the difference. I think that. The belief of a lot of Democratic elected officials and strategists is that if they can move. You know if the debate moves to domestic policy the economy health care

Medicare Social Security that you know that they have an important and compelling case to make against President Bush. I think they also feel that a lot of the Democratic strategist will say that in order to get to that point however they have to have they have to meet the threshold of credibility on national security and they have to you know be credible commanders in chief presumably Wesley Clark would possess those qualities. I think that's one of the reasons why so many Democrats are attracted to Wesley Clark. On the other hand with regard to domestic policy does he have credentials. Well I mean we're waiting to hear. Right I mean rice you know he got in when will it go it's Wednesday or Thursday so you know he has a lot to eat certainly has a lot to flesh out on the other side. Seems that President Bush's approval ratings have fallen quite a bit in recent months since April I believe April at 71 percent and now somewhere around 50 percent. Yeah. Part of that I mean it's interesting because Republican pollsters kind of put out the word Last spring we know that these numbers will come down there is a there is a

phenomena in American public opinion which is you know it's totally understandable which is you know the American public rallies around a president at a time of war. And you know 70 or 80 percent I mean President Bush's father had I think approval ratings at one point in the mid 80s which is really extraordinary. So those you know there are I think there's a supposition assumption among a lot of strategists that you know ratings at that point were kind of just reflected a general surge of patriotism and a general desire to kind of rally around our country at a time of war. You know. Yeah I mean now I would think that there's a lot of concern among some Republicans the White House people say that they're not concerned that they feel quite confident and and in fact they will say and Democrats I think who've been through this was a you know it's incumbent incumbent president is hard to beat. There's a lot of talk about polls when it comes to elections and here I am talking about polls and I just I guess I'm

wondering you know we pay too much attention especially this early obviously. You know you can't really say who the front runner is among the Democrats but you know a lot of the criticism of press coverage of elections in in the last few cycles has been the horse race sort of kind of reporting and you know is there any way to change that I mean do you think just New York Times for example are when you're going into this election cycle I'm sure you're talking about at this point how we're going to do this what are we going to do. You know who's going to do what what's our plan here. Yeah yeah in fact we are having those meetings about about coverage. I think the answer is you know obviously you do horse race and people want to know who's ahead what's happening. But the issue is what do you do beyond that and the paper like The New York Times tries to think about explaining who these candidates are. Or what their background is. You know how they're putting together their campaign what makes them tick. And

what they where they stand on the issues. And not only where they stand on the issues but kind of how in the past they you know their thinking has evolved on what they did as members of Congress or Senate or you know as governor. And I think all together I mean you just want to explore as much as you possibly can about the candidates their thinking the debate and finally where the country is right now kind of what you know. What is happening with our economy. Where where are people you know how do people feel about kind of the national security. So I think all together I mean you you want to do a snapshot of the country and the men and women who would run it. At a particular point in time as the election cycle spins up then you're going to be given a lot of spin obviously and I guess somewhat How do you deal with that when someone is obviously trying to craft a message that you know that I don't want to say distort but maybe spin is the best word.

You report essentially what they say is there a way that you sort of as a reporter look at what they're saying and you know a few layers deeper than that and sort of give readers a chance to see beyond the spin. I think you want to do both. I think you want you know it's again at the time. We you know we feel strongly about letting the candidate have their voice. You know when they're presenting a proposal when they're sketching out their vision. I mean give them a chance to say it. Give them a chance to say what they want to say. And then you know examine it and examine the context of their own history examine it in the context of you know you know what it would mean what critics would say about it what supporters would say about it but you know the first step I think is to let them say what they want to say and then. Kind of into the analysis and debate phase. Let's get back to one of the points that was made by a previous caller who essentially said why don't you just tell us you know

information and I think what the person was really wanting was some kind of greater insight into that information or in fact what I would call an interpretation that information when you report on things. Do you sort of hope that people are you know they're looking deeper they're actually reading between the lines so that they you know they take what they know and what you're giving them to come to some greater understanding I mean you can't tell people what to think. That's right. Yeah. I mean and it's a fine line that you try to walk because I mean you don't want to be cryptic. Right. And you know but I think what she was looking for for me was an opinion and I'm not in the opinion business. So. Well it's actually prohibited you can't answer it. Well we have another call to talk with who may have an opinion that will go to law number one in champagne. Good morning. Yeah. Far be it for me to have an opinion. No you're allowed. My opinion is that this horse race politics discussion and I haven't heard all of

that so maybe I'm being hyper critical here but it's what I hear all the time and one of the things that. Rankles me is that they have assessed that the No Child Left Behind education reform that Bush got Kennedy to sign on to. Etc. etc. etc. the whole spiel has inoculated the Republicans of these of the the problems of education in this country. And when I listen to what's going on around this town. Education is the biggest hot it's you know I don't we have a consent decree to reform the racial inequities in the school system here there's underfunding there's not enough seats on the north side of town where the blacks live there's not enough. I mean so no I don't hear anybody really on the Democrat side even actually making a dish issue of it and it's actually to the credit the New York Times and it was one of their most 25 most emailed articles that I and Secretary of

Education I'm forgetting his name right now an African-American from Houston. You know this is sort of the credential that Bush has on education in some way. That the Houston school system it turned out they cooked the books. It wasn't as big as Exxon but basically. They went back in and instead of calling in an excellent school system because of the results outcome etc. etc. It actually rated poor and I don't know if that was conspiratorial or everybody was just spinning it the way they wanted to at the lower levels. But those are that's you know that's what. No Child Left Behind was based on in some ways and it didn't work there and it's not working here and education is you know what I'm getting at is that it's been said by pundits and everybody that education is is you know he's been inoculated. He's done stuff he's made a compromise with Kennedy and then the NTS know

there's no real focus on how much ferment there is out here. You know Main Street America about education problems and I just I guess I'm just fulminating. OK I think we take your point. No there's not a lot of time left. So it's all right well let's let's get it let's get an answer if we're going to do I understand your frustration and I hear that a lot from people who too often feel like they listen to pundits or watch TV or read newspapers and everything is you know issues like education or health care are basically viewed through the prism of you know who's ahead who's behind as opposed to like kind of the real complicated on the ground real life issues that they are. And so I mean you're raising a point that that I think is a valid one. Well do you think education is going to be a big issue in this election. Is it going to play out in a partisan sense.

You know you're asking me to do the same thing he just said you did. You know I think I think that education will be one of those domestic policy issues that the Democrats will be eager to talk about. Yeah certainly. OK well we just have a couple minutes left and I guess I'm just curious as as a working reporter in Washington someone who's covered politics for a long time. You've covered a number of election cycles are you looking forward to covering this one. Is it something that you really enjoy. Yeah yeah. I mean I think presidential elections are just amazing times in a country rare times and it's you know I covered covered every presidential election since 84 and I have to say at the end of it I know people think reporters are incredibly cynical but I come away feeling kind of like a real patriot. We have a great system that the framers knew what they were doing and. It's a great experience to cover. It's a privilege but it's also changed a lot during that time. Since 1984 I mean I think I was thinking last night about how you know CNN was brand new back at the time of the Gulf War.

That's right. And now we have MSNBC and Fox News and all the other cable news stations in the news cycle has sped up so much news cycles but up so much advertising you know that used to be still kind of central. You know when everybody is spread all over the different cable networks and shows and you know it's much harder to reach the audience now and advertising I think plays a less of a role it's you know it's changed the technet. And then of course you have Howard Dean and what he has shown about the power of the Internet right now. So the technology has changed quite a bit. But the New York Times still a paper record of new technologies even change the New York Times. But we're still a paper of record. OK. Well we're at the end of our time I'm sorry there's a caller we can't take We're out of time. Our guest has been Robin Toner. She is a senior writer in the Washington bureau of The New York Times and I'm sure you've seen that newspaper on newsstands around here. Also the New York Times is on the web which is how I get to a lot of stuff there. And so Robin Toner thank you so much for being here. It was fun.