tv AC 360 Later CNN October 30, 2013 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
welcome to the show, everybody. welcome to "ac 360 later." andrew sullivan was just pretending he's in the world series. who is the most powerful person on the planet? find out who forbes magazine says and if you agree with the panel. also later celebrities head to rehab as a tool to get them out of messy public relations. singer chris brown is the latest. is it a way to tamp down the negative press coverage? health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius was
in the hot seat in front of a congressional committee. she took responsibility for a launch which wasn't ready. later today president obama was in boston where he said he takes full responsibility for making sure it gets fixed asap. a lot of buck stops here with serious questions raised about the president's message, his management style and what he really knew about the mistakes in the making. our panel sure to have plenty to say tonight. andrew sullivan of "the dish." cnn political commentator and political strategist anna navarro and charles blow, democratic strategist. what did you make of kathleen sebelius today? >> i thought she did a pretty good job, actually. i say that being very critical of her in the past. she took responsibility and she gave us a date. so i think we're able to wait until november 30th to see if this web site is working. that's fair enough. if it isn't, her head should roll.
>> do you believe it date or do you think this is just like a hail mary pass? >> i think they have to set a date. they have to work towards something. i think they believed that they had to find a date. they found one. are going to try to work and make sure it happens by that time. i think that sebelius was trying to show some contrition. she was trying to fall on the sword. and i -- but i don't necessarily think that the committee members actually allowed it to unfold the way they could have and took the most advantage of it. because it came across at a certain point it started to feel like bullying. you could have just absorbed what's happening. they do have a problem. she has taken responsibility for that problem. just let it ride. it's almost like they can't seem to take a win. when they're winning they can't seem to take it. they flip it to make themselves look bad. and i think that that happened again today. >> but don't at all these kind of congressional hearings, often it's more about the politician
wanting to get on the nightly news with their strong statement rather than the answer the person gives. whether it's republicans or democrats, no? >> well, yeah. but i mean, there's some of that. but there is also some legitimate issues, and they have a legitimate oversight capacity. >> sure. >> so this is an important thing. what i heard new from her today was an apology. for the first time. and good. because frankly, a little remorse, a little humility can go a long way in a situation like that. and it's taken her 30 days to say i am sorry that this is not working. this debacle is not working. and i take responsibility for the debacle. but i also heard her say things that she just didn't know so much. finger pointing. she answered some things terribly incorrectly. she did give fodder to not feeling more confident about this. >> she says she wasn't signing up for obama care. >> she's a medicare payer. >> that's not what she said. >> but that's the reason. >> that is the real reason. [ overlapping speakers ]
>> she gave no reason. >> she said it was illegal for her to sign up for obama care. >> that's sort of true. >> she cited because of the federal insurance that she already had. >> you mentioned earlier her response to john stewart about how complex the process was and she couldn't explain it. he sort of took her to task. >> he certainly did. i think she did a terrible job. i thought john stewart gave her every opportunity to dig herself out. and she just dug herself in. >> finger pointing, though you mentioned. they think is the republican problem here, right? democrats, the white house has a problem. this web site screwed up. the president kept saying you could keep it and there was a small group of people -- well, relatively small, 5% but still like millions of people. >> 15 million. >> whatever it is. who can't necessarily keep their insurance as it exists today. >> you understand that? >> i get it. >> insurance companies are not offering that plan. >> i get it. but it is a problem he was saying something absolute would
appear at the end. republicans could not take -- instead of taking it and saying, she's fallen on the sword. this is their problem. just let it ride. and people will understand that we were right about some part of this. they couldn't do that. they keep trying to expand that smaller issue into a bigger condemnation of all of the law. that's the problem. >> you keep talking about the small issue about the web site. let's talk about the small issue that was on the split screen with the web site down while she testified for over three hours. >> right. >> this was watching this and watching that split screen that says the web site is completely down. >> interesting that the web site never crashed. which i guess i don't know what the technical definition of crash is. but it's not working. and even while she's saying. >> but i'm saying let that play out. >> how do you let that play out? don't ask questions? >> they literally cannot take the win.
they cannot actually accept this idea that they were right about some things but not about everything. if we're going to hold these hearings and we want to hold people accountable to fix something, that's one thing. but when you're holding hearings to affix blame, that is a whole other conversation. >> charles, let me give you congressional hearing 101. >> you don't have to. >> the democrats see nothing wrong. and the republicans see all sort of things wrong. >> that's not true. >> you know why we're having huge problems like this? people in red state democrats. senator landrieu from louisiana is going to introduce legislation saying that people can keep their policy and grandfathering this in and really changing what is becoming a very loud outcry by the american people. >> can we just concede that this is not simply a republican-democrat thing? that's not really at issue here? the thing at issue here is millions of millions of people have no health insurance and are free riding on the rest of us. and that bill, that law that's
now in existence will stop that happening. lots of people who currently have insurance will have much more security in that insurance than ever before. they won't be shelved for pre-existing conditions, won't have their plan suddenly dropped are changed. that is what this whole thing is trying to do. let us also focus on that. and i do not think that our priorities should at this point be -- we should absolutely, anna, take this on. last night i was pretty tough on this. but i want it to work. and when hillary clinton after medicare d rolled out under the republicans, she said, i voted against this, but now that it's happened i'm going to try and make it work and fix it. >> you can't do that. >> if republicans wanted to work to really fix this bill, please, will you do that? will you actually come and join the conversation? >> i have said before that republicans need to come to terms that there are things about this that the american people like and that we need done. and democrats have to come to terms with the fact that there's
things in this bill as written that are very, very wrong. >> i agree on both counts. >> i don't know what woulding wrong if you want to show some humility and actually go get these things fixed to press the pause button while things like the security issues are addressed. there are security issues they would and are legitimate issue to bring up and address. >> you're saying pause button until how long? nor year? >> until the web site works. >> you believe it should work but you want to get it fixed. your personal opinion. do you think that maybe you were against it before but it's the law and you think we can fix it and make it work or you're opposed to that? >> i think, charles, the way to make it work is to fix obama care to mike it a bipartisan bill that addresses a lot of the issues that republicans are bringing up because they represent a large part of the american people. >> like what? what piece of reform would you add to the aca right now? >> i think you need to make it more consumer driven. i think you need to fix the issue with the policies that people that are getting their
policies dropped. i think that's a big issue. [ overlapping speakers ] >> i understand that. >> people like to make their own choices. when government comes in and says, the choices you've made are not good enough and we're going to make it for you, that goes against the grain for a lot of people in america. >> i know it does. but the reason the government is saying that is because those people are free riders on the system. they're not paying enough into the system and they're taking health care out which comes from everybody else. so they're not saying you can't have a choice. they'll have more choice now between different plans and they can see it if this web site finally works than they ever had before. and the premiums that are actually coming in, the actual premiums that are in are about 15% lower than the cbo forecast. so we're actually seeing cheaper insurance policies and better insurance policies. and i honestly think at some point we should absolutely bash these people for incompetence. but we need to wait. we need to be a little patient. it's a huge measure. we need to do -- the republicans
need to do with this what democrats did with medicare d, which is accept it as law and try to make it work. >> let me ask you this. the web site has great issues. the browsing mechanism to browse and look at the different plans and do comparison shopping is not on. is not working. the spanish web site is not working. there's security issues. is there anything wrong with pressing the pause button and relaunching when it's actually working. >> look you have until march to do this. by the end of november they're claiming it's going to be fixed. so there's going to be time to actually browse this. what i don't understand is why they made the decision to -- i forgot the name of the woman who made the decision testified yesterday -- to force you to sign up first before allowing you to browse. which seems ridiculous. >> because they thought it would put that much more demand on the capacity of the web site they already knew was not going to be handled. >> the actual explanation she gave was well the programmers gave they had to make a choice. they were up against the
deadline. chose to do that over something else. but i think the bigger part of that is is that people are going to be able to sign up on this web site. and if they don't want to do that, if they don't want to wait until the end of november they can use other mechanisms until the end of november. signing up now on the web site is not completely inoperable. >> they refuse to give us a number which is another thing that's ridiculous. >> i actually have a very small business. we are going through this process. we have insurance broker we currently have our plan in we're talking to him. we're waiting. we don't have to do it yet. a lot of people are going to wait until the last minute. let this thing go forward and let's try and constructively fix the problems with it instead of playing politics with this now when it's already the law. we need to make it work. >> let's take a break right now. i want to dig deeper into the notion that the health care debacle has shown president obama to be a bystander out of the loop his critics are saying. david gergen joins us right after the break.
i gotta go deposit a check, transfer some money. so it's your uncle's turn. what? wait, wait, wait... no, no, no, wait, wait. (baby crying) so you can deposit a check... with the touch of a finger. so you can arrange a transfer in the blink of an eye. so you can help make a bond... i got it. that lasts a lifetime. the chase mobile app. so you can.
when they were accused of micromanaging like jimmy carter or being out of the loop, bystanders to their own presidency. back in the panel we're joined now by david gergen who has worked with presidents both republican and democrat since the nixon administration. what do you make of this? is he a bystander president? >> i think he has a management style that does not lend itself to vigorous governing. he's a first class individual. he's a moral man. i worked for nixon. we don't always have that. give him a lot of credit for that. i give him credit for passing a health care bill. seven presidents try and failed. he got it passed. it's become a triumph and a tragedy with what's happening with it. where i think, anderson, he is much much better at campaigning. he ran a superb two campaigns. very well run. very well administered. the awe of the country in both cases. yet he doesn't run the government well. >> what is that? is it just a completely different exercise? >> very different exercise with very different kind of talents. i think they came in thinking
the white house was essentially a political instrument as opposed to a governing instrument. and the inner circle was mostly political. if you look at bill clinton his inner circle were mostly his policy people. his next circle outward were his politic people. >> you believe even on issues of national security or domestic policy, they're running it through a political prism. >> absolutely. and economic prism. >> this health care law surely belies that. if you wanted just to be popular, if you want to be purely political you wouldn't touch this with a barge pole. i think he it upped it and grappled with it because he believes in it. >> i don't have an issue with that. but i still think the way he runs the white house is much more politically atuned than governmentally atuned. when lbj was there he had joe
califano when franklin roosevelt was there he has heavyweights around him to run his domestic programs. you do not see this with president obama. who is his domestic counselor? can anybody name it? >> i can. >> who? >> her name is cecelia munoz. her forte is immigration. but i don't see her anywhere. >> i'm sure she's a wonderful human being. she's not a heavyweight in american political terms. where is tom daschell when they need him to run this? >> give me a couple other examples other than the health care thing where his own engagement in governing has been a failure. >> a lot of people point to syria. the "wall street journal" has a piece saying that basically he's been disconnected during meetings, kind of literally with his body language checking his phone. >> syria. when we elected him not to invade syria. >> if you ask the american people, do you think the stimulus program was well
conceived and well run, you would find by a heavy majority they'd say no. >> they'd be wrong. >> no, they'd be right. >> it was an incredibly effective -- >> it was not an effective program. >> it was. it saved us from the great depression. >> worst recovery since the great depression. >> imposed austerity by the sequester and in the states by republicans. as a recovery given the headwinds against it -- >> when real democrats who understood how to run the government like franklin roosevelt put it into place he put in a place a program like the c cc, he proposed it in april of 1933. he had 250,000 people in the woods by that summer. and it was the most popular program in the country. you don't see anything like that. >> you're saying he's not a real democrat. >> he's a real democrat. i misspoke on that. but a democrat who understood how to use government. franklin roosevelt was prepared for the office. he'd been governor, worked in washington. a group of really nice people around president obama. i have enormous amount of respect for them as individuals.
but he doesn't have a joseph galifano. >> pat sarnstein who has gone every single thing they've done and figured out cost benefit analysis. for the first time had a really serious cost benefit analysis of everything they are doing. you get the impression from this president he really does like the details of governing. he's been a very hands on with foreign policy. >> you tell me the president has been hands on with health care and let this roll out. 2 million people have lost their health care policy and you say he's done it well? >> he's done it terribly. i say name another instance. i've been all day talking to techies about my own web site. they have language i don't even understand. this is incredibly complicated thing to do. i agree with you. there's no excuse for the way it's been run out. but i also don't agree with you with the immense complexity of what they're trying to do and
the difficulty of it. medicare d had the same problems from the beginning. >> andrew, you can't on the one hand say that he is detail oriented and hands on and then he not know so many things about benghazi, not know what happened regarding the irs, not be knowledgeable what's going on with the nsa. >> he did not know. >> when you can't be detail oriented and not know. >> if he'd known about the irs, we should be imbeaching the guy. he was not using the irs. >> tell us how hand on he is when his problem is mushrooming inside his own government. he's not hands on. he does not know these things. it is a failure on the part of the staff. doesn't have a staff that's keeping him informed as they should. [ overlapping speakers ] >> his relationship with capitol hill? would that be another example for you he leaves it to others? >> if you talk to people on the hill, republicans have a huge amount of hatred. way beyond what it should be. but i think if you talk to democrats you find they find he's disengaged. i have a theory, may be wrong,
in the domestic side, i think to a considerable degree in foreign policy, he has centralized power in the white house. he's disempowered a lot of people in the cabinet agencies. they're treated much more like staff than real cabinet officers. he's not the first president to do this. but when he brought power into the white house he did not set up a team in the white house who could really run the government with all that power. that's which think he's had some problems. >> i agree with you on how difficult it is to understand techie speak. but there's also been some very clear memos that have come to light where the people working on the web site gave very clear warnings that they weren't testing enough, that they weren't quite ready, that this wasn't set to go. and why didn't they stop it? because it would have been seen as a political concession at a moment when they were in a -- >> that's where you make the leap. >> how do you explain it? >> i'm sorry. the idea that memos were sent and whether or not they made it to the president's desk is another question. we don't know that, right? but the idea that you make the
leap from information is flowing into the white house and then they make a political calculation to go forward with something and knowing that it will fail simply for political reasons, i think that's a leap that you can't back that up. what evidence do you have that that's true? >> logic. rationale. reason. experts. what evidence do you have on the contrary? >> you just said that as a declarative statement and you don't know that. >> okay. it is my opinion then -- >> can i -- >> you said just a moment ago you agree. you actually think the staff has not served him well. >> i think the questioning of the staff and whether or not they have done a good job and whether or not you have picked people who will make sure you are not embarrassed is a fair critique of this president and of this staff. i think that is completely fair. and i said this the other night. basic management is that you never allow the boss to be caught off guard. >> let me pose this question to
you. >> do you think the memos should have gotten to his desk? do you think the memos warning they weren't ready, weren't tested enough, they didn't know if it was going to work should they have gotten to his desk? >> in retrospect yes. >> then we go back to him living in a bubble of ignorant bliss. >> she said she said to him directly it's good to go when clearly it was not. >> how do you blame him for that? >> go ahead, andrew. >> the question is they work for him. he's responsible for the quality of his people who work for him. >> i get it. what's interesting is the sudden decision to call him not able to govern doesn't normally happen after five years in office. and i think we're in danger of slightly taking this unbelievable cluster of whatever and -- [ overlapping speakers ] [ laughter ] >> i just don't want us to overanalyze this particular moment.
everybody -- now i agree, i think he should be criticized for not understanding on this thing, his biggest biggest domestic issue, that actually getting it to work was as important to focus on as getting the thing passed in the first place. >> right. >> and i just don't want us to extrapolate from this particular instance into a general criticism of this presidency which i don't think is really fair. >> i don't think the bystander title is fair. but i do think this has been a spotty administration in terms of the way they talk to him and how well they execute. >> here's the other thing. i do think that he self-corrects. >> we're five years in as you just told us. >> he has shifted all along. he's a very adaptable person. what i've noticed about him over the years i've been trying to observe this is that there is a sense in which he hangs out on the ropes for awhile.
he's not a proactive president. he ace reactive president just as he's a community organizer. he likes other people to do the stuff. now, in some occasions he has not picked the right people and they haven't been -- you would agree, david, an enormously complicated and ambitious program. probably the biggest domestic program ambition since lbj. so give him a little break in getting this few for a few months. >> one person's not proactive is another person's thoughtful. we have to see it through the lens that we want to see it through. the idea we had a president who we felt like was just gung-ho and going ahead with things before he had thought them through and people actually voted in 2008 because they thought the guy was more thoughtful, that he would take a second. >> we got to take a break. forbes is out with the most powerful people. number one not president obama. we'll talk about who's on the list and talk about it with the panel next. ñn
[s[man] no one told her,right?a. [son]hi! [mom screams] female narrator: the mattress price wars are ending soon the mattress price wars are ending soon at sleep train. we've challenged the manufacturers to offer even lower prices. now it's posturepedic versus beautyrest with big savings of up to $400 off.
serta icomfort and tempur-pedic go head-to-head with three years' interest-free financing, plus free same-day delivery, setup, and removal of your old set. when brands compete, you save. mattress price wars ends soon at sleep train. ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ welcome back. who's the most powerful person in the world? according to forbes magazine it is vladimir putin. forbes is out with the list of the 72 most powerful people on the planet. the russian president comes in number one. president obama is at number two this year followed by the leader of china, pope francis, germany's chancellor as well. the rest of the top ten, bill gates, ben bernanke, saudi
arabia's king ab abdul, leader of the central bank. >> were you surprised that vladimir putin is number one? >> sells magazines. >> any magazine that does a list i'm always skeptical of. >> it every magazine does a list. >> this what is they call on the internet trawling. that is what they do. trawling. it's preposterous. >> do you think it's preposterous? >> it's also preposterous the pope is at number four. he doesn't have power, just moral authority. how many divisions does the pope have? >> first of all, you are a very bad catholic tonight because he can damn the rest of the list to hell. so that to me is power. >> he isn't damning anyone to hell. >> i think the pope should be number one. this man has single-handedly done more to save the church in recent times and to change the perception of the church than anyone in my lifetime.
>> you won't get any argument on that. >> that makes him the most powerful man in the world? >> yes. he's got power over me. >> there's the ability to do whatever you want, putin would be at the top of that list, and then there is power to control things that are powerful like in russia -- >> forbes michael noor is joining us by remote. how do you judge this? why pud putin at number one? >> how we actually did do it, we actually look at four different things. we look at financial resources of the people relative to their peers. so for heads of state, that's usually gdp. corporate leaders that's revenue. and for religious leaders, it's their finances. we look at how many followers or people they have power over. so for the pope, 20% of the world's population is catholic. we also look at are they powerful in multiple spheres.
so somebody like mayor bloomberg who's a politician, a billionaire, a major philanthropist and media mogul is powerful in many different ways. then we look at whether or not they are active in using their power. and we have eight of of our editors vote on everybody, candidate list of about 150 people. then we rank them. and this is how they came out this year. my guess is why that putin is on top probably had something to do with the timing of the voting. the vote was didn't during the government shutdown, right after the showdown over syria. and that would be my assumption. but i can't tell you exactly why the editors did vote the way they did. >> he's the only head of state that can allow pictures of himself shirtless on horseback to be all over the world. >> i think religious figures are also judged on how much financial power they have. it's a preposterous joke. and we should treat it with the
contempt it thoroughly deserves. >> we apologize here. >> david gergen. >> just saying if you have a different kind of judging, let's say the top ten thugs in the world then vladimir putin could well be on the top of that list. the problem you have with this list is, let's take you take this kind of survey about how people exercised power in the second world war. probably hitler then stalin then franklin roosevelt and maybe churchill. look at the value that is go into a survey. >> on top of a demographically dying, really running russia horribly, putin, against the president of the united states with the biggest military more than anybody else put together. it's just obvious -- it's an obvious trawl. >> but if you're sitting there as the editor of the magazine i bet they do sell magazines. >> they do. he wouldn't be on here. >> i don't think that putting
putin on the top, i don't think putting putin on the top is not a -- i don't say putin is going to be on top. this what is the voting was. obama's been on top three out of the five years we've done it. president of china was on top one year. there are lots of interesting stories on this list outside of the top ten. these are not all good people. the billionaire drug dealer is on the list, alchapa. dictator of north korea is on the list. to the point people who are less accountable, obama is accountable to an electorate. even president of china is to some degree accountable to the communist party. putin's manipulated the russian political system that he could stay in power until 2024. and you may say it's a declining power, but major energy state. >> that's all they've got. they don't really have a proper economy because he's ruined the possible foundations of such an economy.
>> andrew, what do you really think about this list? >> i get that andrew doesn't like the list very much. >> i entered a weekly magazine for five years and somehow managed to never do this lazy trawling list stuff. >> come on. come on. >> 250 magazines with no lists. >> no lists? i'll bet you did a lot of intellectual trawling. >> i did a little bit of -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> michael noor, thanks for joining us. appreciate it. thanks in forbes obviously right now. [ overlapping speakers ] all right. david gergen, thanks for being with us. up next, chris brown, talking about interesting switch, chris brown says he's going to rehab for anger management. do they have a rehab for that? is that even a real thing? is it just one of those things the celebrities get on script when they get themselves in trouble. let's hear what the panel has to
disrespect. rehab can save lives but chris brown kind of forced this question after the singer's latest arrest sunday on an assault charge his rep saying brown is going to rehab. no information he has a substance abuse issue. this is for anger management. he's on probation for beating up his former girlfriend rihanna. is this real? >> what does rehab mean? it's not a term that has any medical relevance whatsoever. are they talking about a psychiatric hospitalization? it's just become a p.r. term that puts people back on their heels. oh, good, he's going to rehab. fantastic. not even accurate for chemical dependency though generally it's become an acronym, shorthand for saying somebody being treated for chemical dependency.
he doesn't have a chemical dependency problem. i don't know what he has. >> don't they have a show named celebrity rehab? >> let's be fair. it could have been called chemical dependency treatment but they shorthanded it to rehab. to be fair people sort of understand people as being chemical dependency treatment. >> i don't want the andrew sullivan treatment on forbes. >> forbes thinks andrew sullivan need rehab. >> he needs treatment for the trauma he received in violence that resulted in him being a perpetrator. when kids see violence in childhood, the men act out, the women act in the we say the men become warriors, the women become worriers. i've read about his constant issues. cussing out a security guard at abc, trashing a dressing room. you say this has to do with childhood. isn't this celebrity entitlement?
they have hangers on, an entourage. he thinks he's top of the world. he busts up a dressing room at gma. what happens? what's the repercussions?" the today show" invites him on. >> your point is well taken. celebrities are able to act out further. . but it's not causational. it didn't cause him to act out. he has issues. >> a superman issue. if you end up doing things and the repercussions are not as severe as you thought they would be -- >> it's like a cancer. it's like this creeping sense of entitlement. if you start to believe anytime it's like how people become -- >> you're a celebrity. are you going to act like that? no because you don't have those issues. >> but when i started in the news business, there were plenty of folks i would look at and think how did they become like that? how did an anger monster get made? >> you know how it gets severe. i actually have the only actual published literature. did the research on them and it showed clearly they all have liabilities with which they came
to their celebrity status. the celebrity gave them the opportunity to act it out. >> let me expand on that. reading malcolm gladwell's new book. in it he cites all these studies where trauma in childhood, in some cases death of a parent early on, dyslexia in some cases can actually lead people to huge heights of success. >> absolutely. >> doesn't necessarily make them happy but it can push them to -- >> it goes either way. extreme success or extreme troubles. high risk way. >> he's taken both paths. >> he's taken the opportunity to get treatment. >> what treatment does one go to for anger management? >> that's missing the point. my assessment at a distance, there's trauma stuff fuelling this. as we say, the men become warriors when they've been through aggression and trauma and physical violence childhood. even if they're just witnessing to it. >> would it be addressed in anger management rehab? >> this isn't anger management rehab.
is he going to a psychiatric hospital? i imagine that's where he's going. >> would you let him on your show? >> like courts send people to anger management, don't they? >> outpatients kind of treatment. >> that's what i would imagine -- he's not going to go to some psychiatric hospital and spend a month in a psychiatric hospital. >> they're tilting towards that. they're saying rehab which suggests a place a time out. >> he does remember he's about to go back to court that it looks better when you've been in rehab and doing something proactively. >> but aggressively, taking extreme action. taking it very seriously, getting comprehensive treatment. >> one of my best friend suggests to me we should all go to rehab before we get caught doing anything. that way when we get caught it's a relapse. >> we are not talking about him as if he's not responsible for what he does as an adult. >> you're right. >> lots of us have childhood issues, difficult childhoods, and don't behave that way.
and there is a question of virtue, of character, of manliness. i regard people who beat up men, who beat up women as really -- well, i almost can't find the words to say what i feel about that. >> i agree with you. >> and the idea that could be excused in any way by any trauma is just wrong. >> not excused. >> you always have the choice. well, we keep talking about it as if that's not really -- i know you're not saying that. but because we talk about this without acknowledging this man has done something seriously, gravely wrong to another human being. he's used had is power in the worst possible way. >> absolutely. >> he just need reconciliation. >> by the way, it's not easy issue to treat, either. i had a young man who had perpetrated once in college an act of violence against women. he immediately pulled back from it and said i have a problem. i need to get treatment. i said good you want treatment. how long we treat it for? ten years to get through one
episode of domestic violence. it takes a long time. it's really a very comprehensive and intense process. it is trauma based. there's so much stuff that went on usually. >> the problem is that we don't have any moral authority that we can refer to to judge this kind of behavior so we turn to therapy. because that's the only consensus we can all get in this society. because we all have different value systems depending on different religious or other backgrounds. so i think that's why therapy becomes this catch all. to cover all sin. >> you're right. absolutely right. different terminology for the same thing. >> but understood differently, too. >> perhaps. >> incompletely in the past. >> let's talk about this. why not we say let's let people get help before they perpetrate? why don't we all agree on that. we can prevent you progressing to the point you're doing stuff like this. afterwards maybe it's a question of sin. one of the biggest things about the affordable care act,
seriously -- >> i hope mental health is in there in a big way. >> it is. >> we'll see. >> there is. hold on a minute. >> lip service about that and it never actually comes to bear. i hope to god you're right. i really do. but so many years i've been told that. >> my point is that i think mental health, i benefitted from many years of therapy. i think everybody would benefit from therapy. i think destigmatizing therapy in mental health issues is incredibly important for all of society. for the economy, for everything. that's what we should be addressing. i think if that were more available we would be able to actually make moral judgements about the activities of certain people. and people who buy his records are enabling that. >> the justice system has also failed in this case. not only did he do what he did to rihanna and that was basically a slap on the wrist that he good for that. he has been in many more physical altercations. >> acts of violence. >> and never really gets the full brunt of what the legal system provides to people with
less money than that. >> hang on. sending somebody to jail will make him less violent? it will make him more violent. >> what choice, though? >> demanding treatment. he can afford it. three years of treatment. >> how much treatment do you get before you go to a jail? >> up next stories the panel wants to share. up next. [ coughs, sneezes ] i have a big meeting when we land, but i am so stuffed up, i can't rest. [ male announcer ] nyquil cold and flu liquid gels don't unstuff your nose. they don't? alka seltzer plus night fights your worst cold symptoms, plus has a decongestant. [ inhales deeply ] oh. what a relief it is. [ inhales deeply ]
welcome back. time now for what's your story where we ask the panel to share a story. andrew what's your story? >> the wonderful site of a little boy showing no deference to the pope. an organized meeting outside. but going up to the pope's chair, being dragged away, refusing repeatedly. and hugging him and not leaving him. >> offering him candy. >> then he started to try to organize the event. the reason it's so powerful, like so many with this pope, is that's jesus. this happened to jesus. children went to him. and all of the established figures saiders don't let this child we don't need that. jesus had to tell the crowd, no, chill.
it's that person who will enter the kingdom of heaven. >> you don't think he's the most powerful man in the world? >> he's much greater than that. moral authority right now. >> adopted from an orphanage in columbia being raised by italian parents. andrew what's your story? >> i'm almost in panic stage. i read today we are in danger of overdrinking and outdrinking the world's supply of wines. so we need more people -- more grapes planted. >> both red and white? >> you know, the picture was white so i think it was chardonnay was a particular problem. for me it's a very big problem. >> help is on the way. >> i mean, there's a lot of government dysfunction and political bull hit we have to get through. we need our wine. >> okay. >> my story cuts differently. i've got a recovering alcoholic running for mayor in boston.
martin walsh. the reason i love this, being recovered, he's been recovering for a couple of decades. you have to maintain a certain way of life and maintaining honesty. a politician maintaining rigorous honesty? i'm interested. >> a lot of people have been in aa who are now coming out for him. >> a lot of recovering people now. >> martin walsh. >> my story is germany on friday is going to start its own generation x. germany on friday, parents of newborns can choose a third gender. if you don't want to choose male or female you can just put in x and let the kid determine their own gender when they grow up. >> i didn't hear that before. >> it's an amazing idea. i mean, they have to work out all the kinks later. >> germany soon after it happens in florida. >> so the parent doesn't have to say that it's a male or female. >> just put an x. the child decides later?
>> the child decides later. >> it's interesting. >> why not? >> you put an x where? what are the boxes you check? you say other? why not have it all together? >> you can put an m, f, or x. >> oh, i see. >> gender identity. >> that's true. there are many children born into sex. a vast variety of human nature. >> thank you to my panel. that does it "ac 360 later." thanks for joining us. we'll see you tomorrow night. good night. ♪ [ male announcer ] staying warm and dry has never been our priority.
our priority is, was and always will be serving you, the american people. so we improved priority mail flat rate to give you a more reliable way to ship. now with tracking up to eleven scans, specified delivery dates, and free insurance up to $50 all for the same low rate. [ woman ] we are the united states postal service. [ man ] we are the united states postal service. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. go to usps.com® and try it today. i got this. [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
www.vitac.com this is "piers morgan live." welcome to the viewers in the united states and around the world. tonight, taking blame for the obama care website fiasco. secretary sebelius. >> let me sigh directly to the americans, you deserve better. i apologize. >> then her boss. >> there is no excuse for it, and i take full responsibility for making sure it gets fixed asap. >> and joe biden couldn't even get on it. >> have you tried to get online yourself? >> no, actually, the president tried to get online and my daughter tried to get online.