tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 28, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with health care. today, senate republican leaders postponed senator mitch mcconnell had been pushing for a vote by the end of the week. now they would not support a procedural vote to start a debate on the bill, on monday the congressional office said the bill would leave 22 million -- 22 million americans uninsured by the end of the decade. president trump met with gop
senators to discuss efforts to pass the bill. of vioxx and the former head of the center for medicare and medicaid services, i am pleased to have them both here. what happened? ezra: the score was devastating. 22 million fewer people would have insurance by 2026 but it is much worse than that in what they said was going to happen. the key thing that congressional budget office found is the way this bill works, it would put poor people into care that was so expensive in terms of its premiums were so high in terms of its deductibles. deductibles of 6000 or more dollars. they basically said no poor people would actually buy plans under this legislation.
in addition the cuts to medicaid were grievous. they rolled back medicaid expansion by 2024 and imposed a growth rate that begins to cut medicaid deeply in the and suing years. republicans looked at that and said this is not legislation i can bring home to my state, this not legislation i can defend supporting. not only would they have won a vote to bring the beltway debate but they would not have won a vote to pass it. -- to bring the bill to debate but they would not have won a vote to pass it. charlie: same thing? they're looking at policies to cover more people and conservatives are generally looking for policies that reduce costs. they managed to put forward a bill that the cbo does -- cbs has does neither of those two things. that means he had a difficult challenge because on both sides of him he has to make up ground.
it looked like the right flank was a little bit stronger. since he has put this out we are seeing equal number of people on both sides saying we want to cover more people and focus on the other side saying wait a minute, this is too expensive. by the way, you are keeping the eca much more so intact than we would have wanted. -- the aca much more so intact then we would have wanted. i know this is simplistic for you guys, but it is the fissure between moderates and conservatives in the republican party. ezra: i think that is right. it is a fissure between different types of goals. conservatives want to roll back all of the affordable care act and this bill does not do that. it keeps the regulatory architecture of the of for the care act in place. then you have moderates who wanted to cover as many people
but bring down costs, stabilize markets. this really doesn't do that. in a placeonnell is where he is not satisfying anyone. this keeps a basic centrality at the center of the mel -- center of the american health care system. if you talk to most senate republicans and said to them what you want this bill to do? over and over again they would say they want premiums. kaiser foundation looked at what this bill does on premiums based on the cbo score. at the insurance standard under obamacare now, premiums to that, apples to apples, go up 74%. if people want to get as good and trends as they are getting now, there premiums go up 74% to that is a difficult sell whether your conservative or more moderate. charlie: do you guys think you
could have crafted a bill that would have been able to meet the test of the republican party so you would lose less than two republican votes. andy: if you take one factor, tax cuts, off the table, i think you would have a much better chance. where we situation have a significant amount of money out of the health care system in order to meet this separate need area -- need. the bill is not really fixable. the fundamental architecture is going to give the same set of answers. a lot of affordability problems. there are two avenues from here. one of them involves violating
probably what the parliament is going to instruct them to do, to go down the route that ted cruz would allow them to go down. getting rid of things like community rating and pre-existing condition coverage. it will reduce the value of insurance dramatically. or another route is to go down the path where doesn't work and he says we need to bring in chuck schumer, a democrat. i think he's probably got a different architecture. on begins to focus surgically fixing some of the challenges. you need a tax cut to satisfy his conservative race? greatthis has been the question. if they want to do tax cuts they should do tax cuts. you can figure it out from there. it would be easier than taking health insurance away from people. there are $590 billion of tax cuts in this bill.
individuals, at 45% of them are going to 1%. they think the taxes paid by rich people in this country are a bigger problem than poor people not having health insurance. that is not what donald trump ran on what senator -- ran on. he said too many people are uninsured. tweeted out,cornyn 28 million people are uninsured under the affordable care act. why not fix the problem? we have this to coder ring and we know the central concern for republicans is tax cuts. they do not say that. they definitely don't say it when they are talking about health care. why not take the money in obamacare spending.
as a better market to it. something you can sell or be roud of. they do not need to use this. they could come out with a bill said they were going to solve. charlie: i'm assuming you could argue because of the mantra of republicans since before the care act passed, we have to repeal the -- before the affordable care act passed, we have to repeal this thing. if they haven't gotten caught in terms of another republican mainstream idea, which is what we -- which is we have to reduce taxes. andy: if they had a referendum,
taking away from communities and families in the lower 40%, they would have lost that referendum. i think the question about the close process has been answered. why have a closed process, because they couldn't put what they were doing up to the american public. have another window, and it appears they were beginning to get on the exact same path. claiming they were going to negotiate another deal with some minor changes. be in therecipe to exact same place. >> you have a senator from ohio having to face his governor, coming in to see a man saying don't screw around with my medicaid. >> these guys get off the airplane in their hometown and they run into a kid, they have
been pushing this child in the wheelchair because they have disabilities, and this mom gives the senator a piece of her mind. of the reason why we are in the situation we are in is because they can only avoid the camera and their constituents for so long. they put a plank out there that wasn't part of repeal and replace. it is bad policy and bad politics and now they have to find their way out of it. hand you havee those states were donald trump was significantly -- he'd significantly did well -- he did significantly well in the election. you have two different kinds of groups opposed and supporting the senate bill and people providing groups strongly against the senate bill. business groups like the chamber of commerce where -- like the
chamber of commerce were strongly in support of it. of the owners and businesses, it is a big tax cut. the politics are very puzzling. was moredable care act disappointing -- or much more popular than any opponent we have seen in these republican health bills. what we saw before was pulling the low 20's, which is abysmal in american politics. that poll is above 70%. it is popular even among republicans. you are looking at a bill that is really not aligned on politics at all. it breaks all of donald trump's promises. you can imagine how many ads will be saying lowers will be detectable under my plan. and what they are trying to do, it can happen to mitch mcconnell
and a lot of republicans. one point that is important to say, republicans promised an appeal. they said -- they often told people you are going to get better insurance. senator mcconnell and others talked about how obamacare gives you insurance with such high deductibles you can't afford to use it. to turn around and create a plan that offers much higher deductible insurance as your core insurance product, that is not fulfilling your promise. not only are they going counter to the politics on this issue, they are raking direct promises. to go back to our earlier conversation, for what? is it really worth this? charlie: if you could start from scratch, what would your bill in comparison to the for the care act?
i think what is interesting about the last few been out to 15 communities in the country talking to ordinary citizens about health care. liberals,rvatives, and both sides ask for medicare and single-payer. i don't think anyone of us would have realistically said that as a possible conversation. more coming up more and and coming up on both sides of the aisle. we are going to see things like what we saw in nevada. a proposition for people to buy into the medicaid program. i think the country is moving in -- in a bumpymp direction, maybe we should be in a place where people shouldn't go bankrupt if they get sick. i don't think that is going to be as controversial as it once was what -- once was.
i think the good news about that is there are some fixes that can be done locally and surgically to some of the exchanges, taking medicaid off the table. i think that probably is the next step. charlie: to take medicaid off the table? andy: to take medicaid cuts off the table. shery: two things that intrigued me, do you hear increasing conversation about a single-payer system or some variation of that? ezra: i agree with andy on this. if they pass a bill like this it will make some version of a medicare buy-in. i don't know about replacing the entire system of medicare. i think it is going to come pretty quickly. that don't pass this is it
don't pass this it is going to be single-payer -- if we don't pass this it is going to be single-payer. in a world with you for the care act continues, i think they will be content to make sure the exchange is r.o.k.. they will turn their attention to other things like universal pre-k, make in their college tuition's more affordable. they have major priorities before they get into a huge architectural battle again. this massive achievement of the democratic party being unwound and really all of its fundamental ways, medicaid being cut dramatically over the next couple of decades. you're going to see the same thing happen where restoring the what -- restoring what the four double care act has done will become a central cause. oftead doing the sort private hybrid system based on what mitt romney did in massachusetts, they will be completely discredited.
you are going to see democrats come in and create a medicaid buy-in paid for with subsidies that are financed by tax increases on the rich. you can pass that bill to the reconciliation process. it is a straightforward and popular bill. they know that is going to be a foolish errand. go is not is going to to a world where the rich gets tax cuts and portable that and poor people get health insurance they can't afford. been stopped by moderates, which is a single-payer-esque system. i can't see president trump getting on that bandwagon. of someone who made a lot promises on health care, he has been utterly submissive to the congressional republican agenda
since winning the presidency. i assume it means people have persuaded him. despite the fact that in the past he has talked positively single-payer systems, he has shown no evidence of wanting to work with democrats or being ideologically heterodox. i was waiting for andy to go through our deep debates. andy: i don't know whether ezra agrees or disagrees, but i do think policies aside, we do need to get away from the point where, as ezra was pointing to, we change our health care election system cycle. the real world we live in that american emily's, hospitals, they can't handle that. it will not last. i think americans are very scared of the fact that they are
political identity and their interest in improving health care had become one thing. and they have to identify themselves as either a trump supporter or an obama person or some political label, and that drives how they think the health care system should go. isimately, my perspective the only way we get to bipartisanship is when partisanship fails. if you have both houses, if you have the white house, sure the easiest path is to go down and get your bill done. it to fail,we need we don't need it to fail because it is bad policy, we need it to fail because -- i don't disagree in principle with what andy is saying, i'm much more pessimistic about the prospects. i don't think there is any
version of mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer working together. it's becoming more polarized and these kinds of things are becoming really the province of one party or the other. i would like to see them building the system, i would not like to see massive architecture change happening election by election. polarization changing. i don't see the parties finding a lot of good in working together given how the elections are working out. that makes anything me think those underlying trends in the political system are going to change. if this bill fails i think it would be a good thing but i'm not optimistic it would lead to some bipartisan process to succeed and republicans are likely to just give up and hope obama care lives on its own and move on to tax reform. reason the president
insisted on health care first is because he wanted to feed his tax reform proposals. >> you don't need that to happen. what appears to have happen is paul ryan and mitch mcconnell persuaded president trump that they needed this to happen, that they needed to make the reconciliation rules work for the tax proposals. you could simply do tax reform that ends after 10 years. they could increase the deficit as much as you wanted in the 10 year window. of the tax cuts were extended permanently so is not like those a failed strategy. the wholeld ignore thing and override the reconciliation process. this idea that there was some kind of legislative need to it this way, dom of trump has a solid bill of goods on it but it doesn't make any underlying sense. if you are willing to take the political pain of the underinsured two 2 million
people, you are going -- 22 million people, you're willing to take the political pain of -- charlie: the effort to somehow replace obamacare and all the debate that has come out of that has made it even more intense a political football than it was before the trump administration began. o you agree with that? andy: i think that's right, and i think we're dealing with the maybe a littled bit of the indifference of the ande house as it came in believe that with the majority all you and need to do is a couple of sessions, not even necessarily read the bill, and what he learned is this is in -- this is deeply intense and personal. go out to real america and talk to people, they are much more educated about health
care than they were a year ago. more invested and active. i say that in a way where i understand what a high risk pool is. morgan -- more americans know what a cbo score is today than they ever did before. there is a sense in the real that i hope overpowers things and i think it did have some effect here in the last week where the politicians recognize that they can't just do a politically expedient job to get thing -- to get something that they are living the 2016 promise where i'm 2017 we are focused on this. as as russ said, we didn't ask you to make health care worse. -- as ezra said, we didn't ask you to make health care worse. it is a potential building block for the country. much,e: thank you so
in 2008 they collaborated with chinese artists to design the beijing national stadium for the olympic joined forceshe in 2012 for the serpentine gallery in london. is bestnd activist known for his politically charged exhibitions, most recently focusing on the global refugee crisis. all three join me to join about the latest collaboration. an installation at the park avenue arm in new york that explores the in's -- exposed issue of surveillance in public
space. welcome. who do i ask, how did this ollaboration begin? how did this particular collaboration on this particular project begin? >> the first one was initiated by our friendship and visiting each other. it was willingly. been because we have been asked by curators that wanted us to collaborate again. doing the many things we have done before. also, we talk about collaboration with pierre and myself. that is based on our own initiative and friendship. of course for the pavilion in , we needed someone to
give us the job. that is two different reasons we collaborate. >> how does the collaboration work? >> it is inspiring. otherwise we wouldn't do it. the same readiness to be open and to discover things together. a challenge with each other. questioning yourself and questioning the other, questioning the topic we are working on. that is how we make progress in our own lives and thinking. >> i see it in today's world where we are doing so many things together.
known for -- which is beyond architecture. and also working very different in the field. for us it is a very natural act. >> is it about an aesthetic or an idea? >> conceptually we believe our proportionbeyond one but understanding activity and to explore the idea of how it is being creative. then there are a lot of ideas >> didg to that created
they come to you and say we want you to do something? >> they invite the artist to do a drill hole to do the installation area >> why surveillance kiev -- installation. >> why surveillance? >> we started with nothing as always. something, whydo do we work together? really we want to start from scratch. not knowing what he would do or i would do independently. we have this huge empty space. and that is our potential. it is extraordinary to us in such a city.
we have the spontaneous idea together, this is a place for everybody, where you should lose yourself. only when we were further thinking about people moving in their freely that cameras would follow and we would trace the path. that's how different elements came together and filled up this mental space. a a psychological space, whatever. we could now discern it afterwards. it's not that it started with a title or the idea of surveillance, but those things came in after. charlie: where does the title hensel and gretel come from? later, came in much because this traces that you
project is mindful of the fairytale. of course the tradition has something scary and menacing and the side of the dark orest and darkness and getting lost. darkness andt and getting lost. it could be another tile. that's another title -- could be another title. charlie: what do you want people to get away with -- people to come away with. a we want people to get totally new experience one darkng into this huge condition. this architecture has a very special character and it is such an important geographic location for the city.
want to rediscover where they are and what kind of relationship they are in this space. be surprised or hesitate what is going on. sometimes you discover some very playful interesting possibilities come -- playful possibilities. images -- one transforms into another location, which he would find your image unconsciously or unnoticed recorded. also you can discover it's kind of a surprise.
the image itself is so fresh and interesting. ,ven in modern person ,specially in the west cities they are being 100 times recorded. actually going through it and to experience it and have images is very new. charlie: all art is informed by personal experiences, but as your perspective informed by your own experience? yes, it is also associated with my experience. past 10 years or so. civilians.and my phone had been tapped.
charlie: how does it change? >> may feel a special connection. the power is watching. they always want more out from you. message thathe there is too much surveillance, or is it simply to examine a sense of how we feel about it and how it changes or affects us? cliques i think that ardent architecture cannot really change the world. aware.s people i think this installation should do several things. it should not be a moral lesson or so. it should be entertaining and playful but also a deep
deep perception or better understanding of their normal condition. discussed earlier, it contains an element which is , people andsting increasing surveillance by public cameras, but they do that on themselves. they increase that through the use of mobile phones and public media and social media. that element is also part of the installation. that captures people and people are eager to go and discover themselves. feel menacedt they by that but also kind of a strange pleasure or a strange satisfaction. >> the idea of freebies has replaced the idea of photographs.
they want to be surveilled by themselves. there are no harmful effects. >> it's very complex and psychological. that is a surveillance that the psychological component of space and architecture is interesting. normally this is connected from architecture. artfact this is an arson -- installation allows it to be so powerful. i hear either review suggesting there is no solution to this? this is simply a modern fact of life? >> yes, i think so. we have to understand the impact and live it. this is a possibility to live it in present, to be exposed to all of that and to want to involve people directly. does,o have them as act but to really be there, to go there and be exposed to all of
way, somexpected start dancing and form groups. they are performing. they are freely discovering the potentials of technology and looking at what it does. it is not an answer. people, at the beginning you don't quite know what it is. you are afraid, you are insecure. the more you get in the more you get accustomed. whether it is against or something just to do for yourself or in the space. that is what is quite interesting, to see this shift, this difference and change in behavior. image that was
there for the olympics in beijing. tell me about the collaboration on this. invitation -- it was part of a competition. for the national stadium. that is probably the first or the time they completed superstar architectural form that could be presented. a list of complete activities with a foreign jury. which is very weary in china. often invite architects but don't how the foreign jury.
charlie: they have a foreign jury -- >> their internment will have western death of values or architectural practice. western type of values or architectural practice. project.ng in this i was contacted by a common ambassador to china. they started to agree in collaboration. consultante like a and introduce him to chinese .ulture or modern politics that was a very different china and switzerland.
>> this is not quite right. a great artist, a great friend but also a great architect. it's not that he says why don't you do this a little more green or a little more blue, but he has a deep knowledge of space and structure, and it was a serious collaboration. always when we do something it is real. and a done the studio mollusk -- studio that was demolished in shanghai. very few can do such quality architect. has a big infrastructure. it was very important in this project. we are very much
involved in the way he sees it, which are seemingly not our homeland, which is art. that is a strange and interesting thing. collaborations today, that sounds good. it's his own territory. not easy to let it go and see what happens. that is what the three of us try to do. >> what we agree on from the , wenning is this approach didn't see this as an olympic stadium. was declined and asked for
stadium for everything. of course we have to achieve that. the chinese are smart, understanding that the previous, they were difficult to maintain. just do such a stadium infrastructure for 100,000 people. then two weeks more. then they have no function. just aght that is not post-olympic use, but the post-olympic use should be for the people. which is an infrastructure, and infrastructure for the people themselves. that is also happening.
many many thousands of visitors every year. charlie: so you see it as a public case that public place. something, -- you see it as a public place. >> it became something for the public and the future. can you go back to china? >> i think i can. it is still not very safe but i think i can. too often my lawyers are still in jail. friends inmy detention. i consider myself quite lucky.
it would allow me to go back and forth. charlie: might you collaborate on something else? >> we have no plans. today was a tough day. when we talk, strangely that was not planned. that is how we all saw it. i made some of seeing remark, and all laughing and joking. wewas typical for the way are together and somehow we enjoy that. also when we go out for dinner.
we started with politics, we started with this. it is difficult to explain but that makes us want to continue to do something. we are very busy. something we shouldn't do otherwise. >> this is a collaboration. what are we looking at? >> routine practice for the institution. this kind of temporary building. this program is still continuous.
very -- this program is trying to make us understand the nature of this type of project. it is a clear architecture practice with a strong culture inference. outs perfect for us to work because we have to start from a zero. no matter how experienced they and how strongly opinion i .ave this is the foundation of our project. >> we don't do that in many of our professions. we always share this kind of experience.
>> you have found your playmates. >> we take a paper, we start to make a basic understanding, almost philosophical understanding about architecture and what could be the minimal possibilities. >> but want everybody to see it since this is the first time here. there you go. one of the great museums of the world. we add to that? there is no signature style here. >> it is something very typical for him but the way we are working. are a collaborative
project through our biographies. were seven years old, since we go to school. we started to do things together. never with a plan to do a job together. you start to share. the two of us, we have totally different characters. au learn to use them as difference. you use the difference as an energy and asset. the same is with the building that you show here. an existing structure, which has had so much power in itself, and we can see the
transformation of that building as something where we first use this energy before we change anything. >> and extension completed in 2016, here it is. this in the that previous are from the same architects. >> this is in the middle, not on the right. >> not the one on the right. hashis a strange form that a result from the geometry given by the form of the street. it sits on top of oil tanks, which were hidden in the ground. that starts from something existing and morphs of into this strange form. that makes itd through this form. one picture cannot explain it.
>> one important picture or image is missing. it's a covert space for people. of the publicion space. there we all come back to the olympic stadium in beijing area we had this for the first time. a really strong and huge public .pace where people go maybe not having that you to go to the museum, this is a place where -- charlie: i want them to see this last picture in germany. take a look at this. if you have the brick
building, and existing warehouse, and on top of it we build the glass building. this is also a public space, this is a place for everyone. this is a place for the ever thousands and 10,000. view.redible >> think you forgot to thank you for coming -- thank you for coming, and honor. we have been trying to get you here at this table for a while. i am honored that you came on this occasion. thank you for joining us, see you next time. ♪
♪ betty: wall street in the positive tone, that set to extend into asia. positive bank news to support financials, metals and oil. yvonne: rhetoric has rewritten the market outlook. the second half of the year looks more interesting. betty: struggling with the stress, capital one is the lone standout as 33 other u.s. banks aced the fed's latest test. yvonne: the iphone is 10 years old now.