tv Making Money With Charles Payne FOX Business March 6, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
. liz: new details about the republican obamacare replacement bill coming up next. stay right here. making money charles payne is next. charles: good evening i'm charles payne. breaking news for you right now. we're just receiving details of the republican replacement for obamacare. our own peter barns is in dc with the details. peter. >> that's right, charles. i'm just reading these details myself right now. the republicans are calling this -- these are the house republicans calling this the american health care act, and it would include some of these things that has a sustainability fund for the states to allow coverage to continue for people who i believe are at high risk. there is broader entitlement reform as part of this, a per capita a lotment in medicate. the plan freezes in enrollment
in medicaid, which is what some republicans were concerned about and grandfathers those under obamacare. obamacare taxes are repealed. the obamacare subsidies are repealed. and 2019 there's going to be a layering of age structure to bring more people into the market going to this plan and the house republicans would appeal independent and retroactively back to 2016. now, as for tax credits, which are the cornerstone of this repeal and replace plan for house republicans, there's no means testing but the tax income goes up to $14,000 per family to help families purchase health insurance. the exchanges i think stay temporarily at least. but, again, we are still reading the details of this. we'll get back to you with more. charles. charles: peter, thank you very much. i want to bring in our panel.
we've got gerri willis with us. former senator scott brown and tommy. and real quick, let me go to you, gerri. the important mandate retro 2016 i guess will be reduced or replaced. taxes, all the taxes repealed. there's going to be aid structure implement in 2019. the suitability for folks grandfathering those existing folks who are in there. a lot of republican governors were concerned about that. but you still think -- or you have some news that this may not be enough for all the republicans out there. >> republican senators for them saying they don't like this pn. let me tell you who they are. they are portman, garner. they say they don't like this plan because it doesn't do enough to help those people currently on the medicaid expansion. and, you know, they've expanded medicaid when obamacare went into force so that they could cover more people ultimately with this health care. so it's not very clear what's
going to happen with this plan once it hits the senate because of this conversation with senators. but i have to tell you one of the details we're finding out about this plan, something i was able to confirm tonight in the washington post is that they're changing the way they're going to allocate the tax credit. so it's not just going to be based on age. that was the original idea from republicans that the older you got, the more you would get. not so anyone. it's also going to be income-based as well. so that's very controversial with a lot of republican -- conservative republicans. charles: why? it seems to me that might get around some of the issues. particularly these have the younger people signing up. >> well, there's a louisa hodge to it, and you just stated it. that this would help younger people get more involved because they would pay less for their health care. but republicans don't like this because they see it as a give away. but i'm sure you're familiar with tax credits. there are also often a lot of fraud involved with tax credits because they're not a dollar for dollar reduction of your taxes. if you don't pay taxes, you
get that refund. charles: senator brown, this is major stuff. we're going to go back to peter a little bit later and get even more details because this is breaking news. but your initial assessment and also, senator brown, the thought that some of your former colleagues on the republican side of the aisle still may not be enough for them. >> well, there's only four that i'm aware of. . charles: four's enough. is four too many? >> yeah. of course it is. charles, just coming out today. that's the starting point. they have it out. i'm glad, they said they were going to do it. now they have to close the doors and get input from not only those four senators but everybody else to make it a good bill. we spoke about a month ago. they've been doing this for what? five years now. a little longer. seven years, and it's going to take a little time to unravel it. and now that cotton -- sorry price is in place and now you have an actual bill, they're going to start the process of getting together and try to
bring over some good democrats as well who were affected dramatically by the high cost to the people that work in their states of health insurance. liz: right. tom, there's no doubt, we're all affected of obviously obamacare has been unmitigated disaster. you're with the heritage. you crunched these numbers. what's your initial assessment of this new plan? and to senator brown's point. we know of each though they've had five years and 60 votes to repeal it, this is the first time at bat with this. >> this bill is slightly better than the leaked version we saw earlier in fbi, the tax treatment of individual plans that has become slightly less expensive in this new version. but the medicaid expansion has been left virtually the same as it was on february 10th when that version leaked. and that's a very, very expensive provision to leave in place. basically -- charles: tommy, let me ask you. what do you replace that with? you had a whole bunch of governors who went to the white house, including kasich,
and they're in a tough position. now, granted, they were warned ahead of time. hey, if you buy into this, you're going to get sucked into something that's a trap. they're in this trap now. but what do they do? because your constituents are saying we don't want to lose this care. wel we're talking about people who can purchase health insurance on their own. the expanded population is able-bodied adults. what do you replace it with? you replace it with the law as it was before obamacare. a limited medicaid with a limited federal expense involved in that, a cost sharing between states and the federal government. that's not what we have obamacare, and that's not what we have in the republican-replaced plan. >> well, i have to tell you. we have a long way to go on this one because there are so many points at which people are going to disagree. we've already seen conservative republican organizations stand up and say we don't like this. we've seen the republican study committee say they don't like it. we've seen the freedom caucus say they don't like it. so i can just tell you we have a long way to go. and it's an open question, really, whether this is going to go forward.
charles: senator brown. >> hey, charles. yeah, listen, it's great. they don't like it. i don't like it. everybody doesn't like it. but until they come forward with positive ideas of actually how to fix and repeal it and put in something constructive that works, not only for the cadillac plans but those who just can't afford health insurance, then they're going to stop complaining and be part of the solution. i'm tired of the complaining. i'm tired of the negativity. why don't you, like, knock on the president's door and knock and be somebody who's going to be positive and get this thing done? because otherwise in 2018 when the next round comes around, we're going to be in some real trouble. charles: are you suggesting that push come to shove they'll blink no matter what? i know it's open arms and the party wants everyone all hands on deck. but ultimately they're going to have to make a decision on this thing. and to your point, there are going to be a lot of people who won't be happy. period. >> well, listen, politics, it's like sausage making. you know how to make a law. i know how to make a law. not everybody is going to get
everything not at the present time it's a question of satisfying and addressing a very real problem. as you said it's a catastrophe. it's crushing businesses. three-quarters of a trillion cut from our senior's medicare. and it has to stop because you have a workweek that's under 30 hours. can you imagine, charles, if you and me could work 30 hours? boy, what a great workweek. but it's killing employers. killing individuals. they can't help themselves and expand businesses. so let's figure it out. >> and don't forget the people who are being hurt aren't just the ones who are on obamacare. it's also people who own their own business and had to go out in the marketplace and buy in these private marketplaces, a policy to cover them. they are paying extraordinary amounts of money for these policies. they've got to be helped. charles: talky, from the patient's point of view, you know, we talk about this often obviously from economic point of view. and obviously they're tied together. a healthy populous, should it equal a healthier economy. but from the patient's point of view, the folks who didn't have care beforehand, do you
think from what you've heard that there won't be anyone slipping through the cracks, you know, because obviously, this is going to be a tough transition. >> well, i think that's right. there won't be anyone slipping through the cracks. that's the point of the republican replace bill is to find those folks who might be left behind by the obamacare disaster and make sure that they've got an opportunity to purchase health insurance on their own with some assistance from the federal government if they fall into that income bracket. the important thing to note about this current republican replacement draft is that th is in the drafting stage. we haven't been through the committee with this bill. we haven't been to the floor with this bill. this is going to be a long but open process and conservatives and republicans and democrats alike are going to have an opportunity to weigh in here. this isn't drafted behind closed doors. we're going to have a long process to ensure. charles: tommy, do we bring back the exchanges? most of them collapsed. >> no. i don't think we bring
back the exchanges. i think we rely on free market products for patients that serves their needs. the problem with obamacare so that it prescribed every level of health insurance that we would be able to purchase. the free market does a lot better job providing good products. >> and that's one of the things that will be able to change. there will be more affordability across the board. charles: senator brown. >> charles, you need every tool in the toolbox. you're going to have faith-based cost sharing plans. you can reference the cadillac plan if someone wants to keep a good employee there then give the best care possible. also those subsidized plans are good too. but the key is competition. it's the free market competition, that's going to answer a lot of these questions. and if we put more and more government interexpedience into that process, then we do get as rand paul reverenced, and i believe it a little bit, as obamacare light, and i don't think that's appropriate. charles: scott, let me ask you about this suitability fund to cover high risk. we know that that -- you know, that's an expensive area.
how do you put money into a suitability fund? where does that money come from? >> were you asking me, charles? i'm sorry. charles: yeah. >> listen, i don't know yet. i don't know what the proposal's going to be but, you know, there seems to be plenty of money around the federal government every other time. i'm sure we can address pay for by taking from peter and a lot of the fraud waste and abuse and a lot of the other things over and maybe set up a fund. i'm not sure. i'm going to research it, obviously, and know moratorium. charles: plets face it. we have those two areas; right? keeping younger adults up to on their parents and preexisting conditions. two expensive areas that are really tough to get around. but our next guest, i want to bring in republican congressman harris because, first of all, he's a physician. he's also a member of the appropriations committee, and he joins us now by phone. representative harris, thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. charles: are you -- have you heard -- do you know the bones and the outlines of this new proposal so far? >> i'm not -- i don't think it's going to change much from
the old proposal. i mean, the basic concepts are the same. we're going to make that people with preexisting conditions have a way to get covered, and we're going to make sure that all the features that people like of the affordable care act that we retain them. the features people don't like, we're going to eliminate. charles: and how do you pay for it all? because it sounds magical? >> well, you know, if we bring down the cost of health care, which i think we all have to admit the affordable care act did not do. if we bring down the cost of health care and health care insurance, then of course it will cost much less for the people under the affordable care act. we'll use a different method. we won't use individual mandates. we'll use high risk pools and in essence that's our way of bringing down the premiums, and we hope that, again, states have much more leeway in developing exactly the product that works in that state and think it's going to be more economical. charles: yeah, that's beautiful. the one-size-fits-all obviously new york state and
wyoming would be -- has been something of a catastrophe. i want to ask you about those high risk pools, the suitability funds for those high risk pools. how exactly does that work? >> well, you know, vast majority of states had high risk pools before the affordable care act. i'm from maryland. we had one. it worked very well. you know, the premiums were subsidized from a small tax on all hospitalizations. so what we hope to do is encourage states to set up these high risk pools. we will help them if you understand them and hopefully over time, we'll -- you know, the federal share will go down, the space share will go up. so it will mimic what will happen in maryland, covering a high risk pool on its own. charles: you mentioned the states. i know a lot of republican governors anxious about this one. of course they got deeper involved with the obamacare sort of taking the bait when a lot of people warned them not to. nevertheless, it is what it is, and they're concerned.
they're concerned and apparently there's going to be a freeze and a grandfathering in of existing medicaid patients. is that going to be good enough? >> well, i hope so. the problem is someone who has it now will lose it. if they become ineligible for medicaid, they would drop off the medicaid role because their income went up. but in essence we're going to turn over a lot of these to the state. a lot of the control to the state. i think it's easier to control the fraud and abuse in the states. we know it's probably 20 to 25% of medicaid budget is fraud and abuse. about $125 billion at this point to the federal deficit. so the federal government can't afford it. i mean, very simply put, we've got to get this transferred into the state, we've got to go back the same match that the states had for the preaca medicaid population, and then trust the states will develop individualized plans within their states that deliver the product at a lower cost with
less waste, fraud, and abuse. charles: doctor harris, thank you very much. everyone we'll be right back. we're going to take a quick brek . but at t. rowe price, we can help guide your retirement savings. so wherever your retirement journey takes you, we can help you reach your goals. call us or your advisor t. rowe price. invest with confidence. ...as a combination of see products.. and customers. every on-time arrival is backed by thousands of od employees, ...who make sure the millions of products we ship arrive without damages. because od employees treat customer service... ..ike our most important delivery. . helping the world keep promises. as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl. and what if this happened again?
i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily ...and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made eliquis the right treatment for me.
ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance
charles: the other major story developing today. president trump signing a new temporary immigration moratorium involving six countries. i want to bring in our panel right now to discuss, troy, joe. troy, let me start with you. there's a lot of legal going back and forth. at least two states have said that they will actually, i guess, file sort of motion against this order, which is different. more fine-tuned, obviously. and i would suspect the white house think so it's legally bulletproof. >> i think the white house does. and one interesting thing is
that this new executive order supersedes the prior one. that means any lawsuits relating to the prior are mute. initially the administration said it was going to defend the prior order. but this one is a lot more nuanced, and it addresses a lot of the things that the court had concerns with with regard to the original order. charles: joe, i know you're excited to hear that lindsey graham and john mccain liked this one. >> well, charles, that makes me damn suspicious. you and i, charles, talked weeks ago. no matter what trump proposes, there will be lawsuits. the courts will get involved, and the left is going to protest. he's proposing a shift in a mind-set here and half of america's not going to be happy with it. charles: are you happy with it? >> no. no. no. no. charles: why not? >> i think he's made it too narrow, and i think, again --
and i understand he wants to understand having the courts get involved. he wants to avoid all the ruckus out there. but he's taking away from what got him elected, and i know we can't say a muslim ban, but he was elected to do whatever he can to keep dangerous people out of this country, and i fear that he's pulled back too far from that. charles: well, just moments ago sean spicer came out and said that exact thing. let's take a listen. >> is it purely national security reasons that would justify adding another nation to the -- >> it's always going to be national security. >> are you going to effectively use this as leverage -- >> no. no. this is a national security issue. plane and simple. charles: michael, let me ask national security issue. if that's the case, and we know that it is obviously what president trump ran on, should iraq continue to have been part of that list? >> well, i'm glad to see iraq come off and the reason is iraq has worked with americans
to help decimate the kurdish fighters and all the iraqis that worked with our state department and u.s. military were banned from coming to the united states, even though they had visas already in their possession. so if, in fact, we want to actually use this measure for national security, we need to front load those iraqis, get them working with dhs and our intelligence community and law enforcement, they're the exact people h we need to help keep out of the country and help vet syrian refugees. so i'm glad to see iraq come off the list. charles: especially with the fighting in mosul. i would think this would be a big shot of enthusiasm for them. it's a 90-day moratorium now. 90 days goes by quickly. how does this play out longer term? because i doubt many of these countries, if any of them get their act together in three months. >> i don't think they can. but i think what you will see of course is the united states is primarily interested in dealing with this trump administration. dealing with the questions that emerge from the courts. this is a way of neutralizing that kind of influence.
it seems to me that one of the things that the president might very well have done is to say that the christians who have been facing these problems in iraq and been decimated by isis forces. shouln special. that would have sent a very powerful symbolic message to those people in that part of the world that are suffering so desperately. charles: you know, troy, in the meantime, the fbi reporting 300 recent refugees under suspicion, you know, and being investigated, if you will. i suppose that underscores why we needed this. but it also may be suggest that we're going to wait two weeks, it's already been several weeks. if you're one of the bad guys, you might have made your move already. >> they might have. but what this order does is it says that anyone who's already in the pipeline. everyone that already had a green card or a visa is not going to be affected by this order. and that was the problem that
the courts had prior. but i think the attorney general sessions was right on today when he said that there are over 300 -- out of 1,000, that means about a third of all people that are under investigation by the united states governments for terrorist-related activities come from the refugee program. david: yeah, well, we were warned, weren't we? thank you, gentlemen, very much. we're going to take a quick break. lots of breaking news and lots of news over the weekend we'll still have to cover. we'll be right back
there is a move to stop the process of these h-1b visas. countries will pay to have these workers rushed through the system. president trump saying let's slow down on that. >> we often talk about walls and amnesty and rarely do we talk about green cards and visas. if we are going to hit 4% growth, it will be legal foreign-born workers. but we have to make sure they don't take jobs from snare cans and drive down wages. it's in the high-skilled job sector as well. charles: foreign workers is
nearing an all-time high. people ask how cannot co-exist with millions of americans being out of work? >> birth rates in the u.s. are at lowest level ever. and our death is the highest level ever and entitlement spending is the highest level ever. so either you knead to increase your population, decrease spending or your children have to pay big, big dollars to pay for all this. why do we see that foreign-born population so high? because we have a demographic issue in this country. reporter: president trump tried to outline this in his speech to the joints session of congress. people come in are given points to based on whether they speak english, based on their age, education level and whether they
have a job here. i think we'll have to find a new mixture to make sure we can make rules work here. charles: there is a 100-points system in canada. it seems to me, brian, that that's the predicament stiewrp was in 20 years ago and some one said let's open the gates, they stopped having babies in europe, they invited everyone in from the middle east and north africa. is that a cautionary tale for america? >> it is. that's why you see these big cultural conflicts. we have been in this boat for a long time. e problem is we are just starting to figure out how big after proper lesm it is. we have to talk about productive
constructive legal immigration. but at the end of the day, if we don't grow our population we can't pay for the stuff we are on the hook for. charles: coming up, president trump's tweet storm claiming president obama wiretapped trump tower. this is the silverado special edition. this is one gorgeous truck. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's five. ooohh!! aaaahh!! uh! hooooly mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. it's truck month. get 0% financing for 60 months plus find your tag and get $5500 on select chevy silverado pick-ups when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
charles: president trump's claim that obama prr wiretapped strum tower before the election has the intelligence community on edge. james comey has asked the d.o.j. to refute the claim and they have not done that. ex-president barack obama is denying the allegations. former a.j. michael mukasey said donald trump has a good case. >> i think he has a good case there was surveillance saint was conducted at the behest of the justice department. >> the bottom line is it's starting to look like the obama administration was running
opposition research for hillary clinton's campaign and looking at a lot of trump's associates in ways they are not suppose to. the whole denials coming out seem to be based on the idea that obama didn't order someone to target trump. no, he didn't. but his justice department and f.b.i. ordered surveillance and that's a serious thing. char rr you said he actually set up barack obama. he set up a trap, hasn't he? any time you talk about russia. anything that goes on, everything has to come out on both sides. maybed the democrats won't be too happy about it. >> donald trump is clever by half. this an interesting trap. he's suggesting, that justice department did engage in a fisa request. see there is some surveillance. whether it was obama that was
responsible is beside the point it's his justice department engaged in this. if obama says there is going to be so criticism about this criticism. to some degree it's neutralized that you can provide evidence the request was made by the obama administration. so donald trump set a trap and it's an interesting one. >> i'm a trump supporter. this tweet was side and offensive. think about it. the president said he did it. tino for a fact obama wiretapped knee, without any evidence. maybe it's strategic and maybe he's setting a trap. but that's a horrible thing to do. >> you saw the fisa court, they went to the courts the first time they were rejected. neighbor os sentence bit was to sort of follow a trail of two banks, i parentally situated in trump tower. and it was man for the, carter
page and roger stone. even if that were the case, people would say that's all a cover. and the real operation was to have a snooping apparatus inside of trump tower. >> allege lid we have niece two fisa requests. where did trump get this? he's president of the united states. if he thought barack obama wiretapped him, why doesn't he grab james comey by the back of the neck and his intel heads by the back of the neck in demanding answers right away? >> how do we know he's not? >> i think he's saying congress investigated, congress is suppose to investigate it, and there is oversight there. the bottom line is i don't think anyone disputed the wiretaps and fisa requests went in. even clapper's denial was a
lawyerly crafted denial. charles: comey asked his bosses at the d.o.j. to refuse the whole thing. he's asking them to said the f.b.i. did not violate the slaw which would have happened if they targeted him personally. they did it by cheating the system by pretending they were surveilling russians or ukrainians. it's unethical and quite possibly criminal. charles: the major averages ending the day in the red. but rich people are spending money. why that's good for you and me. my commentary is next.
charles: eggon mobile announcing massive hiring plans. 45,000 manufacturing jobs. $20 billion investment. are we already winning again, america? buy american and hire american are the principles at cover my agenda which is jobs, jobs, jobs will be. thank you, exxonmobil. the market put in self rally attempts. but none of them were enough to receive dues the buyers off the sideline. the most interesting news for me came from gallup. they asked americans, how much did you spend yesterday? it's the highest amount for the move february going back to 2008. only 7 timed in the past 9 years
has the average been above a c-note. check date ra, reebok and retail sales tomorrow. january consumer credit tomorrow and the big jobs report friday. so it's crucial this week we continue to get signs, that soft data and hard data. all the ingredients are in place for a major bump in spending. wages have to start heating up. anecdotal evidence is hinting this should have occurred months ago. friday we'll see evidence that the economy is cook with gas and people are making more money. that's the big story from the spending report. wealthier household are spending big time. $73 from $70. but those households with $90,000 or more, their average
spendi surged. you can lmt thwealth effect, but i thinpeoplee more cash and are starting to put it to work. the market is at all-time highs. folks now understand that nobody is going to look to punish them for having a robust 401k. that means things will only get better from here. a million dollar payday for charity officials. should the trump administration keep planned parenthood open if they agree on one thing? i'll tell what it is next. when ♪ou have $4.95
...you realize the smartest investing idea, isn't just what you invest in, but who you invest with. ♪ won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back
only crowd f.b.i. workers. men and women whose countless acts of heroism seems to get lost in the headlines, especially when it involves politics and politicians. i focus on the fact that america is at an impasse. i think we are going backwards. the younger generation, they don't get a chance to supersede the achievements of their parents. such a predicament. the host of problems could make law enforcement more complicated than it has become. know you are safer tonight for the countless men and women who rare live give credit but too often keep the ire of the public. these folks give up a lot. especially those here in new york where their pay checks barely cover monthly expenses.
for me it was an honor and i want to say to the f.b.i., thank you very much. there is a report president trump may fund planned parenthood under one condition. the "new york times" is reporting is that they stop providing abortions. i tweeted about this before going to break. people are saying no deal. adriana, your thoughts? >> i understand their position. planned parenthood doesn't need our money. in their tax timing in 2014, they had $127 million surplus in excess of revenue. clearly they do not need our money. where i think our money is better spent is funding the 13,000 or more community health the centers we have around the country that provide comprehensive healthcare to women without providing the abortion. i think that's a better way to go. charles: shelby, how do you see
it. >> that's an impressive display of donald trump's negotiating skills. donald trump says maybe we'll fund you, but you have to stop abortions. hisser has had tremendous influence on him when it comes to this issue. he recognized on the campaign trail -- charles: before he ran for office eco night once upon a time. it will be interesting to see how he can influence house and senaten possibly couple to some sort of solution. right now he's muddying the watters a bit with the new house gop plan. charles: i think planned parenthood has mud yesterday the water. the point that you make, it's a wealthy organizations that very rich progressive limousine liberals.
billionaires donate money to them all the time. i'm not sure why they need our money. >> planned parenthood claims the federal funding they receive doesn't go towards abortion. that's because they claim that they get $350 million in private donations that they use for the abortion. before it's creative book keeping. they didn't get half billion from the taxpayers, this shufls this whole thing. planned parenthood provides valuable services in terms of the women's health screenings and so forth. but that's being provide through these 13,500 medical centered through the united states through title 10 fudged and medicaid. i think it makes more sense to keep offering communities, especially low income community where some women don't have
health insurance, their job is to create more community health centers without abortion piece, which an ethical problem for millions of americans. >> planned parenthood said no deal, we are not doing this. charles: the word you are looking for is fungible, all money is fungible. details of the republican replacement for obamacare. it's good stuff. we'll discuss it more next. at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. legal help is here.
their plans for the in is replacement of obamacare. here to discuss, roy murdoch and scott brown. i don't think there were a spleft surprise. maybe a couple holes to fill. but your initial blush, repeal and replace seems to be the order of the day it's simultaneous, you think it gets the job done? >> i think some of the entitlements that came with obamacare will be tough to explain away. but i think it big thing is what republicans have promised all along, which is to get rid of the penalties and mandates. all of the taxes you have to pay associated with obamacare, all the penalties you have to pay, and forcing people into plans crafted by special 90s first place. it's not something obamacare
opponents want to do. let's see if republicans can get it across the finish line. charles: the point is, the argument is that enough people have this for long tonight's become like an entitlement. getting to that level, that's what makes this a dicey proposition. >> i think it best things republicans can do is slice his up into multiple pieces. let people have health savings accounts and multiple votes so if some republican or democrat doesn't like one part of it they won't vote for that. i think you will get a broader support than if you just have one bill. and all the democrats vote against it down partisan lines. charles: i think democrats took their sweet time on a lot of things.
i don't think the republicans want to get too cute by half on this. they have a person in the white house who can use the bully pulpit and twitter to twist a few arms. >> before i got there they were in charge for two years. they could have done all these wonderful things and they did nothing. we stopped that by being the 41st senator. we had an opportunity to fix obamacare by bringing up 300 plus amendments to address everything people are talking about now and the democrats voted against every single one of them. it's disingenuous to think they want to fix it now. i don't dishe grow in terms of breaki no different than tax cuts. we should do the refate yaition right away. i look at obamacare as a tax cut for everybody. and i think you need to include as i said earlier, all the above. all tools in the tool box
approach. don't do this one size fits all that the federal government is shoving down our throats. states love block grants. they can reference that. they want it west coast, they can do it. let's go. charles: vince, we have an aging population. drug prices through the roof. there is another drug story out today, some drug that costs $89,000 a year. can we truly turn down the costs of this whole thing? >> ultimately it will take what some republicans want which is to basically connect healthcare costs at the the middleman level that drive up costs. the thought that people will be
closer to what they are spending their money on will have the effect of driving down health costs. charles: do you think they will get this through? >> i think this ultimately will work. we have a republican president ready to sign this. i think it will happen. charles: here is lou. [♪] lou: good evening. a busy day for president trump who after all went to washington to drain the swamp. unfortunately the president is finding the swamp is deep and there seems to be an endsless number of critters in it. just waiting for an opportunity to fight him at every turn. in a string of treats saturday president trump trying to expose some of the deep state subject version accusing former president trump of tapping of his phones sat trump tower the month before the election. the president tweeted this. how low ha