Frederica Freyberg:
But first, the Senate health care bill contains a controversial public option. It makes the federal government an insurance provider, think Medicare without disability or age requirement. Who will qualify? People unable to get insurance at work or who work for small businesses will be eligible. They'll pay premiums similar to private plans potentially. The Senate plan allows states to opt out of the public option program. Earlier this week, I sat down with U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl and asked him about the plan, including his view of the public option.

Herb Kohl:
I think the public option would be a good thing to have in the bill because its goal is to lower the cost of health care. To lower the cost of premiums as compared with what people our paying now to the for profit insurance companies. And that's why I support it. Now, you know, you never know in the implementation of anything how things work but the people who are supportive of the public option believe that it will reduce the cost of health care. For businesses and for families, as well as for individuals and to the extent that's the case, and most of us who support it believe that's the case, then I would like to see a public option. Now, many people ask whether or not, that's my flash point, whether or not I would not vote for a bill that didn't have a public option. The answer is no. The most important thing is that we begin to debate on health care reform. Everybody in this country, whether you're on one side of the political spectrum or the other, believes that the health care system that we now have is broken. That is, it is way too expensive relative to the health care system that every other country has, way too expensive and contrary to the other countries, we don't have universal health care. So we have to do both things. We have to cut the cost of health care, everybody agrees with that. And we need to be moving towards universal health care. Everybody agrees with that. The only way you can get there is if you begin a debate. If you're willing to come to the table and discuss and talk and eventually compromise. If you're not willing to compromise, then we're never going to get a bill because everybody in Congress has a different idea of what their perfect bill would look like, and the president has his idea of what a perfect bill would look like. And if we all insist on our perfect bill or no bill, then we're guaranteed to have no bill.

Frederica Freyberg:
You would vote for this even if it didn't have a public option in the name of compromise?

Herb Kohl:
If I thought it were a good bill, yes. If I thought it advanced the two causes, of number one, reducing the cost of health care in this country and moving towards universal care, I would vote for a bill even if it didn't have the public option.

Frederica Freyberg:
Another flash point might be the cost. I guess the congressional budget office puts it about $848 billion over 10 years and then to get there, we're raising some taxes on high income earners on a payroll tax, and we're also taxing people that have really great Cadillac health plans and other kinds of fees. Is that the way we should go?

Herb Kohl:
Well, you know, there's a cost in implementing universal coverage. The cost has to be met with some revenues. If it's going to be revenue neutral. The Senate bill is not only revenue neutral, it saves money. It only saves money because we raised some revenues as well as incurred some costs. To raising revenues, it's like, whose revenues? We could debate that endlessly. Whoever pays, increases in taxes, like for example, the device manufacturers pay some increased costs of this program and those with the most expensive health care insurance programs pay some cost as well as some of those Americans who have the most well off are asked to pay for some of the cost of this. Yes, you have to raise revenue to get to universal coverage. If we get to the position where it's not important at all, then we don't have to raise any revenues. But again, most people, whether you're on the right or on the left, believe that we should be moving to universal coverage. I do, too. That does cost some money, but again, I believe that a bill that we pass must have a clear evidence of reducing the cost of health care for families and for individuals in this country.

Frederica Freyberg:
The next flash point might be said to be abortion. What's your position on whether any public health plan should or shouldn't cover abortion?

Herb Kohl:
I don't think we're using any public moneys to cover abortion. That's not our intention, and I hope we don't. A lot of times people use the abortion issue to enflame. Whether you're on the right or left of this, if you want to get people, get their blood boiling, and I understand it, you know, talk about abortion whether you support it or don't support it and whether you support government funding in any way or partially or not at all, it's not the intent of this health care bill to enflame the abortion issue in this country.

Frederica Freyberg:
What's the best thing in your mind about the legislation the U.S. Senate will begin debate on?

Herb Kohl:
The most important thing is that it's a start. That's what it's intended to be. Had we not voted to start the debate, that would have been a calamity because it would mean that once again, we try to get to the starting line on reforming the health care system, reducing costs and also getting the universality. We get to the start and then we step back, and we don't move forward. That would ensure that for the next 10 years or the next 15 years, we don't have a healthy debate. So the best thing about the vote, to initiate a debate on Saturday was that we had the vote and now we're going to initiate the debate. Let's see where it goes. I hope we can improve on the bill. For example, I'm not satisfied that we do enough to contain costs. I don't think this bill goes as far as it needs to go to ensure every American that not only are we going to provide universal care but inasmuch as most Americans have care, that we're going to do something about containing and reducing their cost. If we don't do that, then the bill doesn't have enough in it for most Americans because most Americans, while they want to see universal coverage, they want to see the cost of their health care going down. And so I don't think this bill does enough in that area at this point. But that's why I voted to start the debate so that I can make an attempt with my colleagues to improve the bill that we have. And hopefully to get to something that will attract some bipartisan support. I think that's very important. When you do something as important as health care, you need to have people on both sides of the aisle, at least some people, from both sides supportive. The American people on the biggest issues want to see people from both sides working together. And I hope we'll get to that point.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right, Sen. Herb Kohl, thank you so much.

Herb Kohl:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
With regard to his interest in cost containment, Sen. Herb Kohl plans to introduce an amendment to the health care bill that would streamline access to cheaper, generic drugs. Overall he says he wants the federal government to participate in the pricing of prescription drugs.