tv Washington Journal Niels Lesniewski and Gabby Morrongiello Discuss the... CSPAN July 1, 2017 2:10am-3:07am EDT
washington journal. and later discussed the relationship between the press and the trump white house. this is 1.5 hours. "washington journal continues. host: we are back in the roundtable discussion. washington bureau chief along .ith niels lesniewski thank you for being here. let me begin with you on the state of health care and the senate bill. where do things stand now? the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, set a deadline today hoping to have a final version to send to the edge of office so when they return from the july 1 recess, they will have that her idea of the changes that they will making and what they will have on the health care bill. it does not look like they have
reached that deadline. it seems like they might be ascending some components for scoring, but they are still working on negotiating this. there has been a lot of discord and a lot of different senators who want different things in this bill who aren't happy with the direction that negotiations are waiting towe see what happens. i think the white house is a little disappointed as the couldn't reach the deadline today and they are still in the process of speaking with the senators and working to some kind of consensus of legislation. lesniewski what is the senate line for changes and who with a satisfied? the most recent batch of potential changes that we have heard about largely pertain to onp being an investment tax
dividends and the like for people who are earning generally over $200,000 a year. this was one of the obamacare taxes that was basically completely unrelated to health would --vo's math that by the cbo's match that would give them more money to play with it would give them credit score subsidies. the $45one area of billion to help deal with the that has been making the rounds seems like it is certain to be and the package. what the problem now might be is that we don't yet know how they are going to appease the more conservative members of the republican conference. there has been some reporting that senators like ted cruz and mike lee have been a meeting with the parliamentarian and
sort out a way to get loosening of regulations included in the package, but, frankly, sources i talked to say it is not clear how they will be able to do that and keep the moderates on board. host: i want you both to react to this from the president this morning on twitter. if republican senators are unable to pass with they are working on now, they should repeal and then replace at a later date. gabby morrongiello, is this a change in strategy? gopt: as a shock to the leadership that has been working for the past three weeks on a consensus bill. it is probably something conservatives are happy to hear because they have been advocating for a clean repeal all along. i know that senator rand paul has been one of the stringent opponents of this because he does not feel it does enough to actually get government out of the health-care industry and repealed the original health
care law. but for the president to be saying this, i think the white house is a bit frustrated how iss process has unfolded and eager to turn their attention to things like tax reform. it seems as though if health care doesn't end up happening before the six week august recess that is coming around the corner, they are going to have to put it on the back burner and shift their attention to another legislative item and that would likely be tax reform. lesniewski the optics of the president meeting with 50 senators and he was , somed by susan collins say that was intentional to say that he is on their side, the moderate faction of this debate over health care. but this tweet this morning? were: they certainly setting up the seating arrangement to put certain people next to the president at that event. i don't know where, and i would
be fascinated to know, where this whole repeal tweet came from. sitting here what president trump was watching on television this morning. there was a if panel discussion that led to him tweeting that. i do know that senator ben sass from nebraska is sending a letter to president trump dated this morning, actually, calling for just what was in that tweet. i don't know if there was a conversation that led up to that letter, but it certainly seems like it had to come from somewhere because we had not really been hearing the #repeal line from anybody in the past several weeks. host: what is happening behind the scenes? who is talking to who? guest: i know the president and
a number of his advisers have been in touch with the senators who remain opposed to the original health care bill. they have been reaching out to rand paul, ted cruz, mike lee. beenpresident pence has heavily involved in talks with the house and senate, discussing things with senator ted cruz. i know he has been pushing this administration what he calls it freedom amendment, something that would allow insurers to offer unregulated plans in addition to the plans that meet obamacare guidelines. certainlyhouse is involved in these discussions, but that is a surprising tweet to hear this morning from the president, especially after just less than a week ago him telling the senate that he wants them to make sure they pass something, but he would be ok if it fails. well, for him to say,
let's turn our attention to something else if we don't think we can get this through, i think is a complete change in strategy and one that is likely to make these talks even more difficult going forward. host: niels lesniewski, what you were just reporting was senator sass sending the letter, sass is now saying glad you agree mr. president. if no agreement, two steps, real -- repeal first and spend all this full-time on replace. he is referring to know august break in washington. guest: here and go again. the republican from a georgia makingop-ed where he was a similar case, although not specific to health care, about not enough of the agenda being done to leave for the august recess. is generally no appetite for sticking around washington in august on the vast majority of senators.
that if you could argue the deadline of the august recess is taken off the table because people will still be around, that things might actually go slower because the only thing that drives congress and maybe articulately the senate to act is the incentive of recess a lot of the time. so we will see where that goes. the other thing i think is interesting to point out here is that if you have this full replaced later, the other conflict is with what president trump saying the senate plan needed more heart or that the house plan was mean. if you do if full repeal, everyone gets kicked off of the medicaid expansion tomorrow. if you just take the law off the
books and the states aren't getting the extra money from the federal government for medicaid, the whole system has also is a proms immediately. host: then sass tweets out this, there is a key point. this plan proposes a one-year delay after voting on repeal before is effective. i want real repeal and real replace as we promised. guest: that would be different the -- that would change game from what the president host:'s tweet was this morning. host:getting you to sit here and put on the spot as tweets are happening in real time. --c?ere an option see whatt to's show you schumer had to say yesterday. >> let's start over. abandon cuts to medicaid. cuts did -- abandon tax for the wealthy and we can
discuss problems that are -- americans are concerned about. the availability and cost of health care. i suggested president trump invite all senators to blair house to begin a new on a bipartisan approach to health care. unfortunately, the president said i wasn't serious. mr. president, try me. the minute you make the invitation, we will take it in a very serious way. morrongiello, is there serious discussion, to use that word, about inviting democrats are cracking -- crafting a deal that will get democratic votes? guest: he has made it clear that they have been obstructionist on health care. there is reluctance again white house advisers and the entire administration to play that card and reach out to democrats and say, we are willing to bring you
to the table because they don't think it would cooperate with something like health care. perhaps infrastructure is something there can be .ipartisan work on perhaps there can be some on tax reform. but i think health care is really one area where republicans want to go this alone. this administration has made it clear they want to go it alone. if there was any desire to reach out to democrats, i think it already but have happened and it seems like it hasn't based on the comments that chuck schumer made yesterday. host: more talk on the policy agenda and what happened and we also want to invite you to call in with your questions and comments about the legislative debates that are happening here in washington and what is down the line. we will go to james first in memphis, tennessee, in tennessee. caller: good morning, greta. i am glad i got on. listening yesterday
and today about repeal and replace. i do agree? -- can you hear me? ?ost host: we are listening to you. itler: go ahead and repeal and then try to replace it because they won't do it because they want to keep them from costing the election. i want to talk about a lot of your callers who don't want to get into it, but it does matter what the president tweets about because it is a dignity of the office. that is not how the president should be acting. we set the benchmark or the reference point of how a president should act in office with other countries and with
the citizens of the united states. i do think that it does matter what he tweets about because we look into his character. if we know a person's character, we would know what the person would do or say or whatever. host: james, the other question out of that conversation is, what does a tweet like that in the reaction to it do for the president's agenda and the republican agenda on capitol hill? niels lesniewski, what are you hearing? guest: it is not helpful. i don't know it will have a tangible effect on things, that certainly there were frankly in the hallways on capitol hill most of the questions from reporters were about health care yesterday. i think it was actually one of those days where you had people who were covering the mika,ent's comments about
but it was not. it is not helpful because if you once or twice for senator and you walk through the hallway and get a tv camera in your face about, so what do you make of the president street this morning? you needu're someone to be negotiating with in the white house, that is not going to be a helpful thing for the white house because why would you, if you are a senator, want whoe engaging with people may at any point in time make your life more difficult because of something that appeared on the internet in the morning? host: gabby morrongiello can you add to that? guest: if you are a senator, you don't want to be asked these questions and it can impact the late negotiations are going when things occur. yesterday susan collins is one of the most significant moderate
opponents of the health care on televisionwas yesterday having to answer to the president's tweets. awayjust puts her further from the negotiating table. this is somebody who is trying to build a report with the administration, but actions like that make it so much more difficult for any senator because it introduces difficult questions that they have to ask and that they worry if they support or seem like they are defending what he said in any way, it is going to impact them in upcoming races. so i think it complicates things significantly, and it is something the president's advisers have been trying to you him four months that need to put some thought into the consequences of whatever is you are posting on social media because it can be far-reaching consequences. it doesn't seem as though he takes that into account from time to time. host: the other agenda item for this republican-controlled congress and gop white house is
tax reform. ande does that stand now what are people talking about? the speaker of the house and the treasury secondary insist that can get done in the 2017 calendar. guest: it can get done this calendar year. it is in theory and easier risk for republicans because there is more internal consensus on what to do, but the problem is the way the budget law work is that you really can't do both health with alltax overhaul republican votes at the same time. once a budget resolution gets agreed to for fiscal 2018, which would likely include the instructions to allow the extradited process for tax reform, once that is agreed to
by the house and senate, the instructions for health care turning into a pumpkin. there is no way to do tax reform. you could probably do it in the house, but you can't really do it in the senate until after you figure out what you are doing with health care. host: let's talk to helen in north carolina, republican. caller: i have a comment concerning health care. host: ok. caller: i think they should obamad both of them, the and the gop and let the states handle health care. the federal government should be looking at the military, infrastructure, and a lot of people are using medicare and medicaid and doctors. it is a waste of money. all of the nursing homes and anything because
it costs $8,000 or $9,000 a month. these children need it. i think the whole crowd is crazy. to heck with it. that money on military and children. and also on our state, let them handle it. texas,ancy in overton, republican line. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i agree with the last caller that the government is too big. it is interfering in all of our lives causing us working people our whole paychecks. we don't want government in our lives. we want them out. you referring to the health care bill and the affordable care act? caller: yes, the health care bill and the taxes. they are taxing us to death. we have no paycheck left. we would be better off if we
never worked a day in our lives. do you know that? all these people that are getting a free ride we are supporting. we would be better off if we never worked a day in our lives. if you people -- if these people go pick one.m, these people that want socialism in our government, go be somebody else's president. don't be hours. the: nancy, you want to see republicans repeal the affordable care act, get the government out of health care? the possibility that republicans could keep in place -- and here is gabby to saveello's story, health care republicans consider keeping obamacare tax on the rich. do you agree with that approach? caller: no. if they are rich, good for them.
they have earned it. they have worked hard their whole life. god bless them. these people that don't want to get nowhere in life and want to live of the government and everybody out there and all the riots, these democrats have to stop. host: ok, nancy. what aboutngiello, the republicans considering keeping a tax in place? guest: it reminds me of the pledges that they take to not increase taxes and here is an opportunity to take a tax away and it might keep it in place. is this a solution on the table? guest: it is one mcconnell is considering, because it would free up a lot of money that he would then be able to use in various ways to court the holdouts on this bill, whether that means putting more money into opioid addiction treatment funding, whether that means putting more money towards the medicaid program and making sure
that the rollback of that is a bit slower than even it is now in the current version of this bill. i do think this would be something that conservatives relentlessly, because they feel as though it keeps in place to much of the original framework of obamacare, and they feel, as nancy was saying, it keeps in place taxes that americans are feeling the burden of. and so it does not seem clear right now how much compromise they would reach by keeping this net income investment tax in the bill. so we will see. there may be some movement on that. it will certainly be something that will repel conservatives who remain opposed to this bill. guest: i made a note on one of mentionings callers
nursing homes, which is one of these things got -- that can often be overlooked in this debate. i do not know what would happen, frankly, if more people knew, because i still think people do not realize it is "medicaid," not "medicare" that pays for nursing home bins and kneels and shelter, -- bins and meals and shelter. these are usually cases where all of the income or assets have already been sold off and already been gone to pay for end-of-life care expenses. the nursing home issue is one that can easily be overlooked in this debate, and actually, a lot of the issues with medicaid and the costs that callers have been talking about are actually related to this nursing home
question. in some states, there is no way that the states could do it themselves. the: we are talking about week in washington here on today's "washington journal." two reporters on with us. what are your questions and comments about the actions being taken in washington? one of them in the house was to pass two pieces of immigration legislation. here is the story from rollcall's website. and why ishese bills it murky? -- "murky" maye be an understanding. the house passed a couple of republican-favored bills, one of which goes after so-called "sanctuary cities." these are places where they do in theticipate enforcement of federal where your laws, police are not regularly going to be running immigration checks or turning people over to the
department of homeland security. measures that have come up in the past that have been discussed in the past. certainly wants them and acted, but they are not the kind of things that have the support of democrats. who votedre were some for it now. by and large, they do not have the support of democrats. they will be dead on arrival in the senate. but it is the kind of thing that may cause -- i would not be the least bit surprised -- if it caused trump to call for eliminating filibusters in the senate, so republicans can pass them on their own. host: soanya, daytona beach, florida, democrat. caller: you may call them "republicans," but you are not really republicans. people leading this country are cons," trying to con the american people pay the latest con is the new health
care bill. this calls for a tax reduction for the wealthiest 1% of this country, when it does not cover health or care. forovers illness care millions and a great tax relief for greedy republicans, who care only for their pocketbooks. it is a transfer of wealth from the people who need of the most of the people who needed the least. y, rapid city, south dakota, independent. good morning. hower: i would like to know these people in the congress can do this to the elderly and do this to people who are mentally sick, who have cancer. cancer is not only caused by smoking. cancer is caused by a gene. that gene is the effective. -- is defective. but they want to kill people. host: why you say that? caller: they talk about the holocaust, talk about other
stuff, taking people off of medicaid, people who have asthma. they have no fault in that. their parents do work. it may be a $40,000 a year job job,5,000 dollar a year but their parents work. and they struggle to stay ahead. if they would control the cost of medical, people would not have to die. and if they would not waste money on wars that we do not need to be in, they would not be pulling this stuff. and mining other rich people's pockets with taxes they are taking away from the pool and toxin -- taxing them more money is ridiculous. host: that was that caller's comments. a caller earlier was talking about how the rhetoric from the left -- i think she was a democrat -- about the health care legislation is democrats
saying they are trying to kill people. what about the optics, the politics. substance, but the politics of the senate and house republican bills? guest: i think there are heart-wrenching stories on either side of it. you can go to ohio and speak to people who have in largely impacted by obamacare, who cannot afford to pay their premiums, who are not getting quality health care. then you can go to the other side, what we are seeing democrats talk about. children who might face impacts. the way pre-existing condition protection could be impacted by this bill. it really inflates the rhetoric and makes it difficult from either side to defend or oppose it. i think that is one of the reasons why republicans are looking at keeping this tax in place on the wealthy, because that has been one area where routinelyhave
criticized the health care bill, saying the bill does little to help middle and low income americans and now it is giving a tax break to wealthy americans. by keeping that tax break in place, at least republicans would be able to eliminate a key critique from the democrats. host: taking away the talking point. guest:. and the question i think is also relevant here is then what do you do with that money? money have the action from -- if you have the extra money from that tax revenue on the books, then you have to figure out what is the best way to then spend that money, if you are a republican. that may be where some of the debate is now. one of the issues that certainly -- we will useto ohio as an example again. there are people who were on
the exchange in ohio who could not afford the premiums, but there were people who were doing better in ohio because they were subject, thanks to the affordable care act and reaction by governor kasich and company, were able to get on the medicaid rolls, because they were in this sort of income gap, where there are now-- where they eligible for medicaid. that is part of the conundrum. you have two different sets of problems. you have people like ted cruz, who repeatedly say the number one priority is bringing down premiums, and that is one population. but then the other population of people who are on the expanded medicaid. you keep the tax, get rid of -- you get rid of the talking point, but then you have to figure out where you send the money. host: we go down to dallas, democrat. good morning. my belief, i think that if some
good investigative reporters would find out where all of the , theirs going representatives and your congressmen, i that they will find out why the republicans are doing this. because they are getting a boatload of money. everyone knows it. when you're making moeny li -- money like that, you don't care that death makes money. the dying, the suffering of the poor, they love that, because it is filling their pockets with money. host: you are saying that of lawmakers. gabby morrongiello, who was in the room of this working group with senator mitch mcconnell while they drafted this legislation? were lobbyists there? guest: it was the senate
republicans, who have been working on this bill all along. i do think there has been a number of lawmakers who have opposed efforts to spend more money on various programs, because -- this comes from a bit of a different angle, but they are concerned are they cannot track where that money is going or they do not know where the impact is. they have not been able to measure that yet. i would point to a viewing addiction treatment. aat republicans -- and it is difficult issue, because on the one hand, you do not want to be is restrictingt funding for individuals and states to have been impacted heavily by this opioid epidemic. on the other hand, you want to spending more money on these programs is producing results. it is difficult. republicans find themselves in a difficult place. i think that is why democrats have had such an easy time going
after this bill and launching a campaign to make it even harder for them to get this passed. , wouldiels lesniewski you be able to track where this money is going, as an investigative reporter, once we fully see the text of this legislation? and would members of congress, like the caller said, line their pockets? into theat gets question of which lobbying group stands to benefit. i think we all know, in and around washington, that there streetenty of folks on k who either had details of what was being drafted in mcconnell's office or who thought they had details of what was being drafted in mcconnell's office, because quite a bit of what they had turned out to not be entirely accurate. there were certainly people who pharmaceuticaler
companies or the insurance lobby or what not, who were doing everything they could to be involved in the discussion. and certainly, that is always part of the question up here. to the point of lawmakers themselves lining pockets, that of aus to this question law that generally has no way of being and forced, at least we have not seen it yet. the stock act, which was passed a few years ago, became law, which says that members of congress and staffers are not -- it is insider trading, if you actually go out and say -- say if there is going to be a provision, and i am making this up as a hypothetical, say there is a provision in the health care bill that provides a benefit that basically means
that one particular pharmaceutical company will get a whole lot of new business because a new drug is going to be covered, or something like that. if a member of congress were to, before that will tax is released, by a bunch of that pharmaceutical stocks, in theory, that is illegal. now, there has been some discussion about prosecuting over such matters before that have not gone anywhere, so i do not know how effective the prosecution would be, but in theory, that is illegal. , birmingham, alabama, republican. caller: i love c-span. i want the guests to clarify something for me, whether it is the health care law or the government generally. when they tax corporations or medical devices, don't those companies incorporate the increases in to cost of doing business, and aren't the consumers and everyone else
basically paying the tax? paying theof us increase for the cost of business? host: we will take your question. guest: i think this is something that is still being discussed among republicans, particularly how the tax structure in obamacare word impact pharmaceutical companies, and insurers who are paying for coverage. i do not know the specific answer, but it is certainly something i will look into. host: there is the economic philosophy that republicans talk about. that this is just going to impact consumers in the end. guest: right. in the aca, there was a specific excise tax on medical devices. sometimes -- there is this argument about how
durable medical equipment is paid for, and there was a medical device excise tax. if you are a medical device manufacturer, you would argue, and these are- bipartisan members of congress who hail from states that typically manufacturer these types of things that it this -- that this excise tax is a cost to the consumer. the counter to that argument is the expansion of various federal programs under the affordable care act meant there were a lot more medical devices to be sold. argument in favor of the tax, which was never all that popular, but there are some people who liked it -- harry reid was always a fan of it. he thought it actually worked out fairly well. was that so many new customers
was being brought into by these taxpment, that the excise made sense because the companies were making so much more in money. the companies argued otherwise, of course. host: we will go to manassas, virginia, independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressmenhat the do not really represent the constituents but lobbyists as well. it is hard to prove that if you had a lobbyist in their. -- in there. but i find it despicable that these congressmen would vote regardless of the ramifications. because their leases coming up. some callers are saying leave everything to the state. if you go ahead and let that happen, the majority of states, i guess they were read states that depend on government
assistance, though states will not get any government assistance. it is the same people screaming get the government out of their lives, they would not get any money from the government. host: thanks. we go to tame in wisconsin, democrat -- to tim, in wisconsin, democrat. caller: i think we should move on to infrastructure. the health care reform or repeal was mainly designed for tax cuts for the wealthy. we cannot move on to taxes unless donald trump shows his. we will never get tax reform without donald trump showing his taxes. host: well, let's talk about infrastructure. where does this stand? guest: good question. there was so much hype about getting a bipartisan infrastructure package through congress early on, but that seems to have died down a bit. i am sure there are still backroom discussions taking place, but right now, the focus is obviously on health care,
and, after that, tax reform. but there is a lot of areas in which republicans and democrats could work together on infrastructure. is any big legislative item we are going to see bipartisan action on, it would certainly be infrastructure. bay. bob is in green caller: good morning. questions.uick on the cbo score, can you tell me how accurate those scores are? like for obamacare, what was it like? second of all, isn't everybody grandfathered in in this health care bill? they are not going to lose their insurance? host: if you're getting health care on the affordable care act exchange, are you asking no matter what they do, you still get it? caller: yes, with medicaid. isn't that grandfathered in?
host: ok. lesniewski ---- niels lesniewski. guest: i will take the second question. i believe the answer is no. if you are in a state like and you are someone in a restaurant job or something like that, and you you makegh money to -- too much money to get medicaid coverage under the old system, but you do not make enough to really buy your own health insurance or get it through your employer, i think that the way this would end up working out is that you would be sort of in a gap at the end of the process. host: and his question about the cbo score and its accuracy? guest: knowing exactly what cbo
does is very difficult. the republicans would argue that for thescores affordable care act were way off. but some of this -- i am hesitant to go too far down this road of this discussion, but about cboe argument is its scoring methodology. do they upgrade off of assuming current law is going to remain in effect? 22 million say that people are going to lose health insurance over the next 10 years, or at the end of the next 10 years, that is based off of assumptions about certain states expanding medicaid, because obamacare is staying on the books. there is also -- there is all sorts of assumptions built off of that. host: let's hear from frank, new
jersey, republican. caller: hi, greta. , are all ofto know the illegal aliens in this country on medicaid. and if so, why? host: do you guys know the answer to that? can illegal immigrants get medicaid? somethingnow this is california had looked out for a wild, and not just medicaid but other benefits under the affordable care act. if i recall correctly, it had a difficult time making its way through the state legislature, which is surprising, because california has typically been a safe haven for illegal immigrants. don't know for certain if they. could receive benefits. i wou -- if they could receive benefits. i would cody in illinois, independent.
caller:caller: i would like to k about the people that have but will not be covered later, what is going to happen to them? excuse me? host: sorry. go ahead, niels. guest: i think that is -- of the reason why i will answer that we are still in the legislative process is because frankly, we do not know. if you just repealed the affordable care act and had gotten rid of the exchanges, you auld the in a -- would be in predicament where people had to go to the market, to the extent and by insurance however they might be able to. and presumably, you would have
pre-existing condition exclusions. in the like that was how it was pre-aca. but really, what happens to of forced get sort off of insurance is they have to find it somewhere else somehow, and it might be unaffordable or impossible to find. host: let's walk through the next month of august and what happens after august. what needs to get done when they return from the fourth of july recess? they are seems like waiting now on an adjusted cbo score to see what changes they have made to this legislation, how that will impact the previous version of the bill. going off of what mcconnell had said, what john cornyn had said,
all of those people in gop leadership in the senate, who have been working hard on this bill to reach a consensus, i think there goal is to force -- i think their goal is to force a vote before congress the parts for its recess. if we do not see that, i think it will be 1000 times more difficult or anything to get done on health care once congress returns. host: and after health care? guest: the question is if it is after health care or before health care, which goes to the point about how difficult it would be if things do not get done by august recess. weave in my notes here that are going to be approaching the debt limit at some point between july, if you believe the wants itsecretary, who done before august recess. cbo says it might be until october. in any event, the borrowing authority of the federal government needs to be increased.
before september 30, we need to fund the continued operation of the government, likely with a continuing resolution, because the appropriations process is not working. and by the way, the senate, to the point about infrastructure, they also need to do something about reauthorizing the federal aviation administration, which basically, if the faa reauthorization, if you're not able to collect the taxes that come with airline tickets, potentially airplanes do not fly. care, taxe health reform, all of the things people want to do, we are about to rush into a crush of things that have to be done in order to literally keep things running on schedule. host: you mentioned appropriations, but what about the budget, which sets the numbers? guest: the house has punted on a fiscal 2018 budget resolution. the senate has to pretty much
wait until they figure out what they are doing on health care before they can even do that. so there is going to be have to be some, and there will have to be some bipartisan negotiating on that, because, frankly, you cannot even get a continuing resolution in the senate without democratic votes, and certainly, the budget control act and the budget levels we were looking at for fiscal 2018 are not going to work, so there is going to have to be bipartisan negotiation there. morrongiello, the white house sanctioning a chinese bank, who they said were funneling money to north korea. the house been action on north korea and on russia sanctions. what are the two chambers trying to do? guest: they sent a clear signal to this administration that there needs to be further action taken on russia for their behavior during the 2016 presidential election. i think that what they are now
looking for is to see what the white house is willing to do. was testimony on capitol hill earlier this week from a former u.s. ambassador to nato, who said that not only did president obama not do enough, trump has not done anything on the russia front. i think congress is now looking for leadership from the white house on that. goes, thenorth korea president is meeting today with the south korean leader to discuss what can be done in that region. it is certainly something that is the focus of the state department and this administration, because it does not seem any more as though it is impossible that we could face war with north korea in our lifetime. that is an escalating conflict that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. lesniewski, this congress wanting the white house to act on russia comes as the
president will travel to the g 20, and the report is he will have a sideline meeting with the russian leader. guest: right, we are expecting trump and putin will meet, at least at some point next week. that will be interesting, the white house just sent over, of ally, the domination republican -- former republican senator from texas to be the u.s. representative to nato. certainly what is going to happen is i expect, particularly because she is a former senator, the foreign relations committee will move as quick as possible to schedule a confirmation hearing for senator hutchinson.
reallythat will be fascinating, because it will probably be right after trump and putin have met. and perhaps even before the house acts on this russian sanctions measure that has the senate, that the senate has now cleaned up a technical problem with, and we are just waiting to see when the house will act on that. but the confirmation hearing for the nato representative is normally not one anyone pays attention to, but when it gets called up this time, they may need one of the large senate hearing rooms with the tv's. host: cody in illinois, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. you have a cause-and-effect problem with of the affordable care act. cause is the outsourcing of all of our jobs in 1994, when
clinton, the democrat, was president. industrialists told him we do not want to pay these people that much money to work in our factories. we would rather go overseas and pay them two dollars or three dollars an hour. that is what they did. we did not have a deficit, but trillionave a $20 deficit. unbelievable. and things are working out great for politicians, because they took $900 billion out of medicare, and they shoved it into the affordable care act. i think what he was referencing -- savings from medicare. do you remember the debate? savings from medicare for the photo care act?
guest: right. this was money that republicans continually argue should have been cap -- kept in medicare. at the risk of the old al gore line, the locked box. , interestinglyed enough, was republicans, when they became the party in power, counter those same savings -- counted those same savings. ino not remember an effort budget resolutions from republicans to move that money back into medicare. so one of the things i think is interesting in this debate that i had not really thought of until just now is it is not like the proposals to repeal and replace the affordable care act, i do not think, host: jeff in lexington, oklahoma. republican. hi, jeff. caller: hi, gretchen. i have a question.
on the c.b.o. score on the people who lose health care, how many of those are actually going to be people choosing not to have health care? host: gabby morrongiello, can you answer that? guest: that's something republicans are still wrestling with. i know they had in the original c.b.o. score of the house bill, i think it was about 14 million. i could be wrong. i want to say it was 14 million who under the affordable care act right now are obviously either penalized for not having health insurance because of that individual mandate, and by removing that, there would be a number of americans who would not purchase health insurance because they are either healthy or, you know, just don't feel they need it at this point in time. this is something republicans have been working to address. there was something that came up last week. they were saying, you know, if we removed this individual
mandate, there might be some individuals who purchase health insurance at the last minute right after they actually need it, if they are in a car accident or what have you. so they've been working on putting measures into the bill that would try and discourage that type of behavior to make sure that the pool of covered americans is balanced with, you know, sick individuals and healthy individuals. host: let me get in maxine, our last here in durham, north carolina, independent. how there. caller: hi, there. love c-span. i'd like to follow on a prior caller's question, what happens whatever ple who may, reason, switch health care? i'm recalling a time 30 years, 40 years ago when physicians were private practitioners and option during he those days of treating an underprivileged or a poor client for a lesser fee or for
no fiat all. today it appears to he -- no fee at all. today it appears to me that physicians have become employees and they for various reasons no longer have the option of treating the poor on their own terms, so to speak. and so that is my main -- there's something else about -- host: maxine, i am going to reeve it there. i'll have niels niels offer a response. -- i'll have niels offer a response. guest: that's an interesting point. i would say my own primary care physician is now part of a large medical consortium in the d.c. area when he used to be a private practice physician. i myself am well aware of that. that would be a very different situation these days. if you didn't have -- if
doctors have less flexibility when setting their rates for individual be patients and people who pay out of pocket. st: you can follow niels lesniewski's reporting at rollcall.com. and also ga >> "washington journal" continues. host: at our table this morning, alicia shepard, "usa today's" media and ethics expert. thank you for being here to talk about the relationship between this white house and the media. let me begin by how you would define it right now. guest: i would define it as nothing we've ever seen before and as not productive in the least. i mean, there's always been tension, always, always, with the white house and the press. in fact, i did write a book