♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. president trump continues to fuel speculations that he will fire attorney general jeff sessions. he said he was a disappointed in sessions. in recent tweets, he referred to them as beleaguered and weak. in other political news, the senate voted this afternoon to move forward and begin debate on the gop health care bill after vice president mike pence broke the tie.

sen. mccain: our deliberations today, not just our debates, but the exercise of our responsibilities authorizing government policies, appropriating the policies to implement them, are often lively and interesting. they can be sincere in principle, but are more partisan, more tribal, more of the time than at any time i can remember. our deliberations can still be important and useful, but i think they would all agree that they haven't been overburdened a greatness lately. right now, they are not producing much for the american people. both sides have let this happen. of whoeave the history shot first to the historians. i suspect they will find that we all conspired in our decline either by deliberate action or neglect. we have all played some role, certainly i have. sometimes i have let my passion

rule my reason. sometimes i have made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh i said to a colleague. sometimes i wanted to win more for the sake of winning, than to achieve a contested policy. progress, compromise each side criticized but also accept. just keeping our enemies from doing their worst isn't glamorous or exciting. it doesn't feel like a political triumph, but it is usually the most we can expect from our government, operating in a country as diverse as quarrelsome as ours. me, is: joining with peter beinart, his latest article is "how trump might fire

robert mueller." before we get to mueller with jeff sessions, what is the latest on that, jonathan? jonathan: we are in such a dysfunctional situation. i'm getting calls from the justice department asking if jeff sessions is going to get fired, when is he going to get fired? i don't know. i refer to donald trump's tweets. this is all this psychodrama laying out and no one in the white house is quite sure what he is going to do. what we do know, if you roll the tape forward a little bit, is if you does try to do an appointment -- there is some speculation he could try to replace sessions in the august recess -- chuck schumer did a speech this morning on the senate floor, which nobody noticed, it was a very important speech, he said we're not going to let you do that. we are not going to allow the recess to happen.

donald trump is left without good options here. charlie: you asked, peter, why is trump doing this other than he hates the russian probe, i guess the other answer is he is donald trump. peter: he is a bully and a cruel man. i mean, this is a cool thing to do. i don't agree with jeff sessions politics of all, but jeff sessions has been deeply loyal to donald trump. charlie: the first among establishment politicians. peter: he risked things for donald trump. he has been very loyal to donald trump. people watch that and said, this is the way donald trump treats people who have been deeply loyal to him. people who tried to serve his agenda. sessions is a true believer in the trump agenda. it is self-defeating, but also the act of someone, i don't think at with honor in his dealing with other people. charlie: you wonder why the president -- if in fact he was so angry about it, simply wouldn't go to jeff sessions and say, i have to make a change.

>> if you go back to the 1990's, 1980's when donald trump's love life was playing in the tabloids, sometimes donald -- it was the gossip columnist that found out before ivana trump that don't -- donald was having a liaison or elements of his affair were playing out through the tabloids. so, it is certainly not out of character for donald trump to broadcast decisions about people who are even more intimate than a loyal cabinet secretary through the media. charlie: is it possible -- there is a story that sessions tried to resign? or went in and offered resignation customer -- resignation? >> that is accurate. he did. it wasn't quite as dramatic as being reported. sessions said to him, if it you feel it is the right thing to do, i'm happy to resign. it was very much out of a sense of honor.

although, i have talked to people close to sessions that say since his resignation that he is enjoying the job and doesn't want to leave. but even they wonder how long he can withstand the public humiliation of the president of united states publicly tweeting about him. criticizing him. it does seem unsustainable. charlie: do you think the president will try to fire robert mueller? jonathan: if i had to guess on it, yes, i do. he is obsessed with the probe at the moment and particularly now the probe seems to be veering into his, based on the public recording, into business dealings. i suspect, based on conversations i have had with people around donald trump, but that is a third rail. if it does head in that direction, i don't rule out the idea that he could try to fire mueller. charlie: do you believe that, too?

peter: i do. remember that donald trump did not want to releases tax to keep hisrder privacy, even though it hurt him to a degree. i think he figures mueller is trying to get me. maybe he figures that mueller will find things. it is better for him to try to have this crisis happened before mueller discloses all of that, rather than when mueller does. charlie: he has the right to fire him, or does the deputy attorney general have to fire him because he appointed in? -- him? >> it is legally murky here. first of all, special counsel is not a law, it is simply regulation. some think trump could rescind the regulation altogether. it is also possible he may have to keep firing people until he found someone -- charlie: almost like with nixon? >> it will probably end up in

the courts, but it is certainly murky enough that if it is -- donald trump could do it and it is fought out in the court, and that republicans well ultimately, as they have done before, stand by him. trump has a good record of creating facts on the ground. he just does things and there were times on the campaign republicans said, they think this was awful. went he went after the judge, paul ryan basically called it anythingt he didn't do that blocked trump's past. i think the question would be beyond saying we disagree with this, what are they willing to do in conjunction with democrats? charlie: what can they do? peter: they could maybe pass a law to appoint mueller again, for instance. charlie: it would be a congressional act rather than a presidential act. lori executive branch act. peter: if -- we don't know -- trump's rating among republicans remains over 80%.

we don't know where it would go to if he were to fire mueller. if trump is still very popular among republicans, republicans are going to think twice before devcon one against trump. charlie: that is like when barry goldwater went to the president and said, you have to go. peter: right. people stuck with nixon for a long time. devcon charlie: until after the supreme court had spoken. i want to come back to mueller, because that seems so crucial. there is also talk that the secretary of state thinks about -- or at least there are sources saying he is not happy and he is considering whether he is in the right place? jonathan: i cannot speak to his headspace. what i can't speak to is the -- probablynsions too soft a word -- between rex tillerson and particularly his chief of staff, there have been

huge clashes over staff. we saw a blowout into the press, there was a meeting where rex tillerson exploded at the head of presidential personnel. there have been huge clashes over stuff. what i am also hearing from sources in the room is that rex the extent voice to that encroaches on national security is really not a very powerful voice in this administration. donald trump listens to james , atis more than anyone else bubbly than anyone else in his entire cabinet. -- probably more than anyone else's -- in his entire cabinet. when it comes to that group of people trying to influence the president on foreign policy, rex tillerson has waning influence. charlie: who is on whose side about firing sessions, maybe leading to the firing of mueller? jonathan: i don't know of anyone in the white house who is advocating for firing jeff sessions.

there have been a number of meetings where i am told everyone in the room has been kind of trying in their various tactical ways to get him to calm down and offer a vote of confidence. charlie: what do you know about that, anything? jonathan: this is -- steven: peter: it is different then the comey situation. there are reports that jared kushner pushed for comey's firing. it will be interesting to see what happens in the family. you can imagine a situation in which -- the mueller investigation has a potential not just to hurt donald trump, but with the people in his family. to hurt donald trump, jr., jared kushner, ivanka trump. if he starts moving to do business dealings in connection to russia. so you can imagine a situation where the family members would have quite an incentive to stop the investigation before it uncovers things that cause a potential problem. charlie: the shifting factions in the white house, it is really hard, because they are not united on issues that are

necessarily consistent. for example, bannon was said to be opposed to the hiring of the new communications chief. according to the reports i read. whereas, others you would think would not have an opinion, were in favor of it. jonathan: that's true. i mean, one of the key dynamics at the moment is that steve bannon and reince priebus have become allies of convenience in a feud against jared kushner and ivanka trump. that is probably in terms of the hottest conflicts in the white house, that is probably right at the top. and jared and ivanka distrust reince priebus, they think he is incompetent, and they want him out of the job. to the extent which steve bannon sees them as ideological enemies, he wants to protect reince priebus. which is ironic, because a few

months ago, they were not exactly best buddies. charlie: it is, indeed. jonathan thank you, great to have you on the program. ♪

♪ charlie: we turn from politics to legislation as the senate moves to debate whether to repeal the affordable care act. health care remains a divisive

issue has ever. at the core of the central question, how do we cut cost while increasing quality. and what role should government play in the lives of americans. last night i appeared on a panel with three men on these issues. andrew slavitt, mike leavitt, the republican governor -- governor of utah who is also secretary of health and human services under george bush. here is the conversation about health care. what happened to us, why has health care been something that paramount for president obama to pass and paramount for president trump to repeal? >> i think, charlie, in referring to me as a politician, that in and of itself connotes negativity.

[laughter] charlie: i don't mean it that way. >> i know you don't mean it that way, but it is perceived -- when that happens, we prefer to be referred to as elected officials. [laughter] but, the nobility of politics and being involved in public debate on policy issues is a noble thing. it ought to be. many would look back to a great deal of changes, go back to tip o'neill and say the worst thing to happen in washington, d.c. was the jet airplane. because people no longer stake -- getaway day was today. we were on the 2:00 shuttle, there was the congress going back to new york, and everyone was flying out. the commuting factor, i think -- in the modern world of being back home to the constituency all the time, the post-gingrich years where many have looked to what transpired during that time

where everyone was frowned upon to be in washington, to bring your family there to -- and i will suggest some more things that have radically changed the way washington works, and i would argue, for the better. the removal of politics for many respects, although we can talk about citizens united and what has that been for the body of politics. for instance, lobbyists can no longer take members of congress to dinner, and that is a good thing. people think we should take them out, but what is lost and that is the linkage between democrats and republicans. people would take everyone out. so we have lost in the social connectivity and that won't come back. it is frowned upon to take trips. if you are a marginal member worried about reelection, you are not going to the trip. it could be to afghanistan, that may be the only place you can going get away with it, right? but inevitably, those kind of things, everything is fair game.

charlie: mike? >> i would point to three or four things, the first is the country is fundamentally divided in our view up what role we want government to play in our lives. it is hard to devote much energy to just that question unless you have something like health care that is so personal, where you can use that as a means of doing it. i think there is a basic division in our philosophy. the second thing i would point to is the combination of technology in politics. our ability to use precision in reapportionment, to literally carve districts that are win-able on both sides has eroded the middle to virtually nonexistent. there may be 20 districts that are swing districts and all the money is focused on that. everyone else is safe. i think that has created an enormous difficulty.

the third is, i think the math has changed. it used to be when you ran for office, your goal was to get 50% -- to hold your base and erode enough of the middle you could get 50% plus one. now, the discovery is there is enough apathy in the middle that you can get enough votes on the extremes of either side to win an election. therefore, people have begun to in essence, just focus on their base. so, they talk to themselves. i think the media has discovered that, that is true and they now speak to their own cohorts. it is msnbc versus fox, "the wall street journal" versus "the new york times." there is very little devoted to the middle. and lastly, i will say, there has been a dramatic

federalization of many of the most intensely personal issues that were meant to be battled out on the state level. we have now made the national issues, where it is very difficult to resolve matters where those differences of opinions and differences in values make difficult decisions. if you have to have it the same everywhere, you can't get to a conclusion. many issues like education, and like health care and others, that typically would have then -- been dealt with at the local level have become federal issues. charlie: andy? andy: i think we've got two different worlds, but i don't think it is a democrat or a republican world, i think it is a washington world versus the real world. i think the perspective we have in washington is that republicans are largely still living in 2016. in 2016, talking about obamacare was gold. it won a number of elections, it

was easy to criticize. i think for the policy gains, it -- certain as we sat there in 2016, it wasn't a political success -- president obama said that. they find themselves in 2017, not necessarily fully prepared to govern. and i think, those that have been brave enough to face their districts, and not many have, have learned in 2017 it is not about obamacare repeal and replace, it is actually what do i have today, versus what are you trying to do. charlie: and what do you want to take away from it? andy: what are you trying to take away. that is a fundamentally different equation. some are waking up to it, many aren't. what is interesting, is when you go out to the real world in town halls across the country, the things i find striking, it -- is if you say to people, it doesn't matter if you are a trump supporter, obama supporter, voted for hillary, doesn't matter who you voted for. you have an interest in your health care and you shouldn't

have to declare. because all of a sudden in this country, how we feel about our health care has gotten tied into how we have to describe our politics. and i think ironically -- i think where there is some hope, is i actually believe that health care is one issue that can unite us. because it is something that can transcend politics if we get past issues from washington. i think there is great hope and -- in the rest of the world -- and the rest of the country, that that people will put the politics aside on this issue more than anything. i think to the extent they don't weather -- whatever party they find themselves in, they will find themselves out of step with what people are looking for right now. charlie: has the failure of politics and collapse of the senate, and collapse of repeal, and collapse of everything else they have thought about trying -- led to an awareness that we have got to find a different way? is their mindset moving in that direction? >> my sense is among the

members, among the rank-and-file members, yes -- among the leadership, not so much. and i think the white house clearly isn't going to give this up. i think if we are in round d, we are going to see e, f, and g. before this thing gets through. we are not yet at a point where the members of congress are getting weary of this, are going to stand up to the white house and say, maybe we ought to step or maybe we often go for something a little smaller or maybe we ought to try a bipartisan approach. that dynamic doesn't exist in the majority party yet. with all due respect to the majority party. and their relationship to the white house. charlie: it is hard to do that if in the seven years you have campaigned about all the evils of obamacare. >> also on the democrat side of the aisle, there is a bit of the divide -- we have seen the leadership and its membership as well. group, with tuesday

meeting in some unnumbered room somewhere in the capital, and that resonates backend people -- resonates back and people are like, we are not quite ready to do that yet. i think -- we are not ready to negotiate with republicans on the future of health care until they stop the effort to repeal. it is a seven-plus year movement to repeal. once that stops, once we feel that is over, i think we can go back. i think there are things we can do to bolster what we have accomplished so far. charlie: do you think that is a possibility, mike? there will be a moment in which -- an assessment at some time? we can't have everything we want, so we have to figure out how to get something? mike: the difficulty with great slogans is people remember them. [laughter] mike: repeal and replace is memorable. reminds me of "read my lips, no

more taxes." and i continue to believe we're going to see a piece of legislation. the imperative is simply too strong for the republicans, for them not to come up with something. i think -- if their aspiration was this, it will likely be this. but one thing we know is it will be titled -- repeal and replace obamacare. beyond that, we don't know what repeal means, we don't know what replace means. but can i say, i am actually a bit optimistic, not about the politics of the day, but i think you have to step acting ways and say, this is not -- we are arguing about the here and now. the reality is, we are here in this country moving toward what i think may become a uniquely american health care system that will not be proposed by either

party, but will essentially be the sum total that the two extremes battling will lead us to. i think we are 25 years into a 40-year transformation that isn't driven politics alone, that is really being guided by economics. i find it entirely unusual and strange that we have an through -- we are going through a debate now on what is 20% of the entire economy, and there is virtually no conversation about the impact this is having on economic sustainability. but i think that is the invisible hand, that ultimately is going to guide this and the economics is going to shape this substantially morning times and politics. more in time than politics. charlie: when you look at the future, beyond what you are saying at some point it will work its way through and people will wake up and say, we've got

to do something different -- was it a mistake not to start with infrastructure and get some kind of coalition, some kind of working together among the democrats and republicans on something at the beginning of this congress? >> my feeling is the executive orders that have come from the white house over the last six months, primarily in the early stages come in january and february, were very debilitating toward creating a positive relationship with the democratic caucus in the house or senate. for me, as was mentioned before, my district is right across the east river in queens. i represent jackson heights, woodside, astoria, sunnyside, corona -- i have some of the most diverse places -- we have the most diverse places in the inire world, of the change ice procedures, the daca

withdrawal, the -- my constituency feels under duress every day when there are ice agents standing outside the courthouse in queens county because of the human trafficking case. that sends shockwaves through my constituency. makes it very difficult for me to work with this president. with congress, i can delineate, i can decipher that, but it is very difficult for me to work with the president on anything, quite frankly. i didn't agree with george bush on just about anything -- that isn't true. i didn't agree with many things, but i worked closely with him. for instance, on the indian-civilian transfer deal. i became one of the lead democrats. , rightt the bill signing behind the president when he signed that bill, because i

believed i don't see the ability to work like that with this president, because there has not been any form of an olive branch. it was incumbent upon him, because the party controlled everything that if we are going to work with them, their needs to be an olive branch. democrats are not to blame the discussion about how because we can't get the health care bill passed, we are trying to defend it, don't get it wrong, but we have never been asked to the table to begin with. to undermine is the affordable care act, it's not giving us a starting point. >> i am not here as a partisan, but could i just say, this is how it always is? look back when the affordable care act was passed, there was drama like this every week for a long time. would they get the 60th vote?

how would things turn out in massachusetts? it was a cliffhanger. we started off this year i don't , care if they had taken a water bill, infrastructure bill tax , cut, the same thing would have happened. the freedom caucus had to demonstrate that nothing could happen in congress unless they were there and they would of walked away no matter what the bill was. donald trump and paul ryan had to show they could walk away, too. and so they did. lo and behold, two or three weeks later there was an announcement we are now going to vote. the same thing is happening now. two senators announce they are out, they write the obituary, this is over. that threw in the towel. mitch mcconnell is the guy who throws it, looks like we are stuck with a obamacare. not for a minute. he is back there working to put this together. this is just the way a messy

political democracy works. this is a negotiation and people are looking for leverage. they may not pass anything. i think they well, but it won't happen neatly. charlie: will it happen before the 2018 election? >> i think personally if it is going to happen, the best -- we were talking about this -- they've got this reconciliation vehicle and if in fact that is truly going to expire, i think the pressure is on to get it done between now and september 30. there is some question about that. charlie: what did the aca get right, in your opinion, and what did it get wrong, both in terms of concept and execution? >> i think the things it got right, everybody in this room knows and we don't need to belabor.

we could talk about all the people that got coverage, but i will tell you what is more important about the 20 million people who got coverage is what it means to their daily lives. i had the privilege of getting letters and emails from people getting coverage for the first time, and one of the ones i recall is a woman who described how she came home from work one day and her middle school daughter was there. she said to her daughter, you can join the gymnastics team. her daughter leapt into her arms and started to cry and said, but mom, you have been telling me for three years i couldn't join it. and she says yes, mommy has insurance now. what is important about the story is it is so ordinary, but it represents the link that i think health care plays with our connection to the middle class. we changed the contract with this country.

to say it doesn't matter what your income level is or -- your health status you're , entitled to health care. and did we get it perfectly right? no. did we get about 70% right? that's about right. charlie: tell me what you got wrong. >> you've got a whole bunch of people that get help from the government now. you have low incomes -- through medicaid or through the exchange. if you get your insurance through your employer, you get a tax subsidy to make it happen, but if you are in the middle class and buy insurance on your own, you don't get a subsidy. we left out the middle class. a political scientist will say it wasn't the smartest political move. the affordability burden, people are more or less protected from unless they are in the middle class. i think that definitely needs to be fixed. charlie: do you think it made a difference in the 2016 election? >> definitely.

i would say there are probably three or four that made a difference and anyone might have changed the outcome, might not have. but certainly this was something that -- obamacare became something that was -- and i think this is another thing that wasn't executed well -- that the republicans defined better than the democrats defined. they defined it as everything you don't like about the health care system, call it obamacare. if your doctor moves, that was probably a obamacare. if somebody cuts your hours, that was probably obamacare. it was not until there was something other than obamacare that that reality got -- i don't blame anybody but ourselves for not making sure that the pieces that people actually very much value, the patient protection pieces, were not appropriately associated with the aca.

the republicans and democrats have to look at themselves. if they look over the last seven years over the supreme court cases denying medicaid expansion to 3 million people, which drove up rates for everybody else, the funding -- the rate stabilization fund, everybody has a little bit of a blood on their hands. the bottom line is, one side cannot blame the other anymore. >> i would agree with this in terms of lessons learned. one thing that is certain in politics is whenever a party who has been out of power regains it, they always overreach. barack obama was elected president, they had been out of power for a time. they reached to a point that they excluded republicans and we ended up with a bill with no republican votes at all.

we now see donald trump and the republicans take power and make the exact same mistake. they overreach. you end up with a partisan debate. the solutions are not that complicated and we are arguing actually about words a lot. is is going to be repeal and replace or repair. there is a reality that a lot of areas is common ground. charlie: nobody is using the word repair. >> to be fair, there is a lot more than words going on. the american people figured out it is a debate about defunding medicaid. >> and a tax break to the wealthy. >> if they had gone to repeal and replace like they said, focus on reducing deductibles, reducing premiums, hsa, i think we would be in a different spot. >> you're making my argument and that is if you can get

republicans -- if they didn't overreach, if we could have a serious conversation about solving the problem, you could get there. but again, back to your first question, it took me a while and washington to figure this out, but washington -- congressman, tell me if i am wrong. a lot of it is preparing for the next election and controlling the news cycle today to prepare for the next election. because that other team on not do anything right, they will always be wrong, but we will do it right. so, let's not do anything until we have power and we just go back-and-forth. again, i go back to the argument that a lot of this we are discussing about issues at a federal level and everything being one way as opposed to allowing a little more flexibility and space. >> i think there is truth to

that in terms that the president -- during the obama administration that didn't exist during the bush administration. in fact, the response to 9/11, a lot of that was done in a bipartisan way, but clearly, this notion of sit back and do nothing and let them flail happened during the obama administration. they said, were not going to let this man get reelected like the comments of mitch mcconnell. now, the shoe is on the other foot. i think the tone is set on the top about the body politic of our country and how we will move forward. what has been said by this president, i believe, is

unprecedented. it is making it very difficult for people who want to work in a bipartisan way to do that. ♪

charlie: silicon valley uses the word "disruption" a lot. do we need new ideas in health care that will disrupt the system we have?

>> i would argue we have an idea, and it is a change in the payment structure away from fee-for-service to value and -- my colleagues can comment on it, but it is a big idea. it is the biggest change that has happened in 50 years in health care, but it is very hard. and it isn't something you can just embrace as an idea and then execute. it will take a long time to do it. i think that change is supported, by the way, by both parties. there is agreement, but the issue is, how do you execute on it? this goes back to what i was suggesting is our hope is for economics to disrupt this, not for politics to disrupt it. charlie: what do you mean by economics in this case? >> i think if we can begin to focus on the fact that we have

an economic imperative that we share to solve this problem, because you look at other countries, whether in europe or even in south america, you see economies that were disrupted by the debt problem we're working toward. if you look at what is driving the problem, it is health care. we have a shared problem, at some point it will become acute enough that the economics will override politics. charlie: we have deadlock on issues. >> look at tarp. congress came together in a matter of weeks. >> it was ugly. >> it was ugly, but it happened. the unfortunate fact is in the democracy we live in today, it takes crisis to get politics to

move. i think at some point in time we are just waiting for a -- heart attack to get us to change our appetite. charlie: if we are not at that point, when will we be there? >> it could happen quickly. >> what is the economic imperative to provide health care? the affordable care act did recognize that imperative for those who could not afford insurance. >> which is exactly the dilemma we are dealing with. we have a dilemma of a sense of compassion and a new sense of global economic dispassion saying that if people give money for bonds, they want it back at some point in time. that is ultimately what will drive, i think, this new system.

and the reason i think there is reason to be optimistic. >> let me focus on the disruption i think we need. we do not have a problem in this country with the 67-year-old white jogger. that is not going to disrupt our system. that person gets good care. the problem we have is the woman who lives two bus stops away from the nearest grocery store or doctor. she goes into kidney failure, spends time in the hospital. these chronic conditions and often behavioral, mental, nutritional, other issues, drives the cost in our system. we have seen charts the comparison to other countries saying we spend a lot more and get a lot less. you don't always show the

reverse chart that other countries have figured out if you invest in primary care, mental health, you focus on the people difficult to take care of, people with chronic conditions, until we make that investment and really fundamentally understand that investment, you're going to go down the same track absent politics. that is where compassion and dispassion meet. >> i think andy is right. the ever evolving nature of health care delivery goes beyond the physical itself. does the person have the ability to get to that office. what are the living conditions? is health care moving towards -- assistance in terms of how people afford their rent or housing as a means of fitness or wellness. these are questions, but i think

in essence, coming back to the politics, how i perceive it now is that my republican colleagues were damned if they didn't, but more damned if they do. i think that is part of the difficulty they are in right now, because of their political base and expectation they would have done that. i think you are right, governor, in some respects, the overwhelming pressure to get to that political goal is very powerful. charlie: the political goal of -- >> that's what i said. if we move into 2017, we will look at this differently. charlie: or 2018. >> i'm not talking about the political cycle, but the reality on the ground that every poll is saying what republicans don't think they are saying that they can cash out on obamacare. charlie: was there a developing

of change with a new appreciation for medicare that took place in this debate? did republicans, for example, understand this political axiom that if you give benefits to people, it is very hard to take them back? >> i think there is a widely held aspiration in this country that spans republican and democrat for people to have access to affordable insurance. that is not a dispute, the issue is, what role will government play. that is what happens in medicaid. in medicaid it becomes a question of, is medicaid a way we can help those in economic need, or a program to expand the number of people who are insured. there are differences in opinion about that in congress. once they figured out that

medicaid was clearly designed for one, but has been expanded to another. it is not about we want people to have insurance, but are we going to use it as a means to pay for people -- >> it scored better. charlie: apart from politics -- and it is hard to be a part from politics, what do most smart people, whether it is doctors, hospitals, academia, or pharmaceutical companies -- what do they think? >> i think it is a wide held aspiration for people to have insurance. charlie: for everybody to have insurance? >> i think you can get democrats and republicans to agree that the fee-for-service is the heart of the problem, that coordinated care is going to be better than uncoordinated care, and the third thing is whatever we do it has to be score-able. if you can build on those three

items, you could come along way to finding a solution. i would make the point that both parties are -- we have a problem that each party gets power and it overreaches. i think there is a moment in time that somebody is going to craft something that is bipartisan and whoever is in power when that happens will govern for an extended period of time. charlie: you really believe that? >> you spoke about the magic moment. you look back when we had an economic crisis, you look at 9/11, there will be a moment when there is a catalyst for that kind of activity. when it happens, i think it will be cathartic to the american people and they will reward politically whoever did it. >> i think generally speaking,

if you talk to democratic policy people, the first thing out of their mouths will be how to we cover more people. charlie: right. >> if you talk to republican policy people, they will want to talk about the sustainability of the system. the cost -- to make sure we're not paying too much. i think democrats could do better if they talk about cost. charlie: and republicans to talk about access? >> i think some of the cost rhetoric -- there are people that are serious about it and people that use it to say we are actually just going to curtail the federal budget, do this to

do tax breaks, or whatever it is. both parties, i think -- and between that, i think you probably have some portion of the republican caucus that agrees about coverage, but i try to remind people back in the real world -- and you can tell me if i'm wrong -- we expect and believe that each of our congressmen and women, and senators, are policy experts of every topic. and people ask me, why don't they recognize x, y, and z. it could be that in 2009 they were selling automobiles. they see the talking points when they go home to their districts and they may have some policy stuff, they may not have access to policy staff. leadership in congress is more and more important. under the current leadership in the senate on the majority side right now, you know, it is

harder to see our way there. >> again, i think one of the things that people are yearning for -- and i understand the debate, there are some people that don't believe a conversation that we can allow states to have individually, because they might come up with different solutions. but in my mind, long-term, a lot of this will have to be solved in the laboratories of democracy and states instead of trying to have 535 people figure of the solution for everybody. >> going back to talking about access to health care or the mandate that everyone will be covered -- we will try to cover everyone some way or another. and primarily it is about access on the other side -- we have come across the mandate that they must be a part of it.

that comes to whether we can actually come to agreement on that. the other side of it is applying every area of the country to another. i have been -- i was part of negotiations in many respects to the affordable care act. and a lot of my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle, say this is how it should work. well, it should work that way if everyone has access. most people had access to some form of insurance, they had limited access to medicaid. as opposed to new york where a lot of people are exposed to medicaid, you have undocumented employees who have no access to insurance. i think most importantly, it comes back to whether you provide access to insurance, or whether it is about the mandate. >> that is a good way to say we have different philosophies in

our country about what the role of government should be. charlie: you have come back to the role of government a number of times, because you believe it is the question that separates opinions on health care? >> i do. charlie: can you imagine that america will ever want a single-payer system? >> i don't think we will go there. i would say to the congressman that there are a lot of states in the country that would initiate, past, and execute an individual mandate. charlie: thank you very much. thank the panel. [applause] [indiscernible] ♪

>> we're in the middle of the asian trading day. welcome to bloomberg markets asia. the highs and lows of business, surging chips and a successful smartphone help samsung to a new record. the flipside is a collapse of noble shares plunging again on the profit warnings of 78% this year. the $10 billion ticket taking foxconn to america, terry gross

saying it is a win-win. allident trump says it is down to him. treasuries a little mixed in the asia session after they climbed overnight. sank, thatthe dollar is all to do with the fed and what a lot of people thought was inflation outlook. inflation expectations have been driven a lot by the 10 year yield. this chart will show you exactly that, although since last month, since around may or the beginning of last month we've seen that relationship is an somewhat. this is key in telling her yields could head. very important for what the dollar is doing. look at that plunge in the right now the lowest level since may of 2015. very close to that long-term support level that we've seen since 2015.