senator bill cassidy. inc. you for being with us. -- thank you for being here. also, we have our guests on the health care beat. let's begin with the ruling of king versus burke well -- versus burwell expected at the end of this month. what is the alternative?

senator cassidy: a loosely there is a plan. i introduced something known as the patient freedom act. it repeals mandates. by doing so, it lowers cost. it further lowers cost by returning jurisdiction control to the insurance commissioners in the state where it was before obamacare put on mandates, and then we take the money that the state would ordinarily receive and we made them eligible for credit and by doing so lower the cost for insurance. we also give patients portability between plans and give them the power of choice -- price transparency. so if someone can nknow the cost before she pays for something. host: do you have any sense of

what the court will decide? senator cassidy: i do not. however, when they say state exchanges, it would seem to me that that means the state exchanges. and it would seem from jonathan gruber's videos indicate that despite protestation. >> if you say that you'd you not want all of these people, these 6.4 million people to be out on the streets without health insurance coverage. i am wondering -- you have a plan this senator leadership planned, how close are republicans to having a more cohesive solution you guys can present not only to members, but to the public.

senator cassidy: these folks are receiving subsidies to buy insurance. they would be held harmless. we do not want a woman receiving chemotherapy to -- there is a consensus we will hold that woman, that person, that family harmless. as regards what will replace the decision against obamacare would effectively repeal of version of obamacare. i think what there is not a consensus off is whether we should put forth a plan to replace that segment. the patient freedom act replaces that segment with pro-market reforms, but i could not say all have signed on to it. ms. haberkorn: it seems like one of the issues is how do you protect those people?

some would like to restore subsidies. others feel that that would be embracing obamacare. do you think the party can get together? senator cassidy: i think so. the obama administration implemented the law illegally. that is what will be determined if the supreme court rules against them. folks are paying to magically higher premiums. premiums have skyrocketed since obamacare has passed. although the president thinks of the cost of health care being flat and he is right, it started before obamacare but it is right, but the premiums have gone up like this. there is always good to be someone who disagrees, but as a rule we recognize she did not do anything wrong to it was the administration and we should not penalize her. host: melissa? >> thank you senator. your plan has a repeal of the individual mandate.

i know a lot of republicans have that included. it's aims like it is something unlikely for president obama to actually sign. i am wondering if there is room for middle ground when the two parties up to sit down and figure out what is going to happen for these people losing assistance? senator cassidy: sometimes you get the sense that the president is protecting the law and not the patient. in the state of louisiana, our rate of insurance was 20% before the law passed. it is 20% now. it has failed. premiums are going up in some states as much as 60%. the rationale was premiums would be lower. in the patient freedom act we've give -- we give stave an option not to enroll someone

unless they choose not to be. if you look at 401k data, it shows you have much higher participation rate if people have to opt in, if you will. i think under the patient freedom act, which by the way that is also in the house proposal, another republican proposal, would give you more coverage than with the individual mandate. if you just want to protect the law, he is going to veto it. if the real goal is to take care of patients, i sure hope he will look at a different way of giving people access to coverage a way which frankly cannot do worse than what his plan has done. host: one of the fundamental arguments is those without insurance use er rooms as their primary care physician? how do you go beyond that? that, as you will know cost significantly in health care cost. senator cassidy: there is an irony here. the administration says the rate of uninsured is as low as it

ever has been. most of those folks are on medicaid. medicaid pays providers so little that still the person with medicaid does not have access to position. she is still going to the emergency room. this is the worst of all worlds. we have someone paying to go to the insurance -- going to be emergency room because the the illusion of coverage without the power of access. we take the money to vacate and the money when people sign up for obamacare and we've give credits used by health savings accounts with first dollar coverage. obamacare, you have a $6,000 deductible. under the patient freedom act you would have first dollar coverage and the academic literature shows the individual says, oh, my gosh if i go to the

urgent care center, i spend less, i save more. we think the patient freedom act is a better way to go than the 6000 dollar deductible of obamacare or medicaid which is the illusion of coverage without the power of access. >> do you get the impression that the repeal of the individual mandate would be necessary for republican response to give the subsidies flowing? senator cassidy: mandates from the federal government are coercive and i think most americans perceive as un-american. most americans do not want to be told by the federal government what to do. we accept income tax. we accept the draft in times of war. do you expect the federal government to say, we're going to penalize you? no, we don't. we do not expect the federal government to come to an employer and basically incentivize them to lay people off to avoid penalties.

that is what the law does. republicans believe in freedom. we think the individual, the patient should have the power not a government you're a crack. republicans are about repealing those individual mandates. ms. haberkorn: one of the concerns, if you get rid of the individual mandates, you will cause a debt spiral. the insurers will be overburdened with people who are very sick and costly to cover. have you keep the insurance markets afloat if you do not have the incentive for everyone to get in the pool and covered through insurance? senator cassidy: we are seeing an incipient death spiral now. some states the insurers are requesting premiums of 60%. if you look at health insurance premiums that obamacare passed, they have skyrocketed.

health care costs flat. insurance premiums skyrocketing. that is number one. under the patient freedom act another republican proposals the individual, the state would have the option of enrolling someone unless they opted out. so, under the patient freedom act, the proposal i am supporting you would either be on medicaid, medicare, social security, v.a. tri-care, something like that, or you get your insurance through your employer. for those who do not have public or employer-sponsored insurance mostly get a credit and if they did nothing the state would have the option of enrolling them in insurance unless they opted out. that way you get greater participation than we have under obamacare. some would estimate as much 5% participation. i think you probably heard me say earlier, in louisiana, our rate of uninsured is 20%.

we can do better than that. we can replace the integral man j -- mandate with something effective. ms. attias: senator cassidy we are talking about a scenario where the government loses and king v. burwell. if the government wins the case, have you see that playing out? senator cassidy: i think the health-care law is on tenuous ground. interest premiums are increasing 20% to 60% across the nation. this is with deductibles of $6,000. we were told we had to pass the law to protect people from medical bankruptcy, and yet medical expenses are climbing because of $6,000 deductibles. im a doctor. i have been working in a hospital for the uninsured for 20 years. if you went to one of my patients who are good people and said, oh, you have to come up

with $6,000 before your insurance kicks in, they would locateok at you like you are crazy. $6,000 for someone having a tough time paying rent is impossible. people who paid houses make it a credit and then because they went too high on obamacare credit next year it will be clawed back. and that may be between the houses they are painting. anyone that thinks this law is working for working families, does not know working families. if you have cancer or als and it is giving you coverage you could not otherwise get, hey, i'm glad you have coverage. i would just say there is a less expensive way to get there. for someone who does not use it very often they are getting stuck with bills they cannot afford. it is a policy that does not work for working people, not for

the patients i saw. ms. haberkorn: senator, i wanted to ask you. i know you worked for a long time in louisiana's uninsured hospitals. did you ever have patience, to you and say that this law is a good thing? is there anything in this law where you have seen it is having positive impact? senator cassidy: again, if someone has als and could not otherwise get coverage, as a doctor i am so happy they are getting coverage. but more typical is the woman tina, from jefferson parish, louisiana. she walks up to me and she says, you know, i am 56 years old and i have a hysterectomy and i have no kids. and i am thinking, ok. [laughter] and she says, i am paying $500 a month on insurance with a $6,000 deductible. another woman walks up and says,

i'm 58 in my husband is 57. unless my name is sarah and he is abraham, we do not need to be paying for obstetrical services. and by the way my policy has gone from $12,000 to $22,000 a year. i said that on the campaign trail. a reporter wanted to fact technique. we looked it up. no, she is wrong. it is $25,000 a year's. -- $25,000 a year. those of the stories i'm hearing. host: do you think we will see a decline in the number of primary care physicians because of the affordable care act? senator cassidy: doctors are discouraged. they are retiring early, if they can. i would like to think --

you do not want someone to be ground down, but you have to log on to a computer and say, yes counsel the patient about cancer and by the way also talk to her about smoking cetacean. a is another layer of bureaucracy in which doctors feel oppressed by a. -- oppressed by it. they feel like they are dealing with bureaucrats. what to give patients the power which is a better system that obamacare. ms. attias: you just mentioned the issues of meaningful use. i wonder what opportunities you see there, can be done to lessen burdens you see now?

senator cassidy: first, we'd taxpayers of put up $30 billion with a promise that medical records can pass easily between providers. i save the expense of a doctor treating me. that has not happened. there is evidence that some of the major vendors of electronic medical records as part of their business plan are blocking access of other institutions to these records. you and i pay $30 million in someone with a business plan blocking access -- you and i should be very angry. here is what we can do. we can hope that industry collaborates or we can ask the administration do this. i am told that the department that has the responsibility for this is had a department from the get go on interoperability.

if so, it has not worked very well. lastly we can pass legislation. to me, that is the least favorite option, but if that is what it takes, i am willing to go there to get the taxpayer a bargain. senator cassidy: -- host: pope francis released his encyclical on climate change. he says it is one of the principal challenges facing humanity. in your mind it is climate change for real? senator cassidy: if climate change is for real -- let me rephrase that question, if you will. i would stipulate for the sake of argument that climate change israel but -- is real, but i think people who asked that question are pre-proposing -- presupposing that we structure the economy the way that they stipulate. one of the major redactors of

somebody's health is their job their prosperity. do they have income? there is such a strong correlation between how well someone does i naturally and their health -- financially, and their health. it's all predicted by prosperity. we will just stipulate for the sake of argument -- we need to worry about climate change? what i am worried about, the prescriptions that would destroy jobs. 4500 jobs have been destroyed in kentucky by the epa's war on coal. that was said and committee hearing this morning. 4500 jobs in kentucky. whole communities devastated. this may have been west virginia. your only asset is your home. you can sell it to no one because everyone else has lost the home. i would rather move the argument

to what are we going to do to make people healthier? if it is somehow involved in climate change we should consider that, if we can show that is really what matters. when we do that, let's not make them poor because poverty is one of the major predictors of people not doing well in their help in every other aspect of their life. host: what is your reaction to this encyclical? you said global warming is a moral imperative? senator cassidy: i have not read it. i was told it was a moral imperative because the poor are the most likely to be affected. i would point out as the united states we can do some good things. at natural gas creates jobs taking families that are struggling and giving them better jobs of better benefits, can be exported around the world and we can give construction jobs by building export terminals and maritime jobs by shipping it and natural gas is one of the best btu for carbon

footprints there is. so, if the administration is truly concerned about this, then we should do our best to take natural gas productions to record levels and as soon as possible as export it around the world. the keystone at so pipeline is predicted by the state department to have a negligible effect on carbon release, to actually save workers lives because it is safer to ship oil through pipelines than over trains and trucks and barge, and also it creates the prosperity for those working families that are struggling. the keystone xl pipeline is something we could do to address the moral problem of poverty and climate change. ms. haberkorn: senator, could you talk a little bit about how you feel the relationship is between president obama and

congressional republicans? i am wondering particularly if the court does rule for the challengers and king versus burwell, the president has already says he wants a one sentence solution that would restore subsidies. clearly congressional republicans do not feel the same way. where do you think that relationship is right now? do you feel like if the court did role for the challengers there is any room to negotiate? senator cassidy: a couple things. you cannot fix a 2700 page bill with one sentence. there's lots of problems with this. insurance premiums have skyrocketed as much as 50% in the state. most recently a month ago. 25 percent and louisiana. you do not fix that with one sentence. if the president's goal is to fix the law with his name on it,

there probably is not room to negotiate. if the president will accept my goal, how do we protect that woman who a been diagnosed with breast cancer and needs insurance for chemotherapy? it would make them the centerpiece, not protecting the law, but taking care of patients. we have lots of common ground. and i will come in good faith. for 25 years i have been caring for the uninsured. my wife is a recently retired rest cancer surgeon. -- breast cancer surgeon. i will meet him and i think others will, too. we care about patients, not about a law. host: a quick follow up. ms. attias: we spoke about the mandate and the challenge republicans are seeking as part of the response. what about smaller provisions? the house voted on a repeal of the medical device tax? is that enough to get republicans to rally around

financial assistance? senator cassidy: king versus burwell does not address the tax code. if the medical device tax comes up, there may be some who are interested in that. but for those who know the code they would have to go further afield to incorporate that. what i have been focused on is the scope of king versus burwell. people will lose coverage because they implemented coverage illegally and what can we do to bring coverage? we can bring a lot of other things, but from my perspective, i want to take care of those 5 million people to 8 million people number one and number two, i want to take care of those states doing poorly under the law. what can we do to protect those states? host: your colleague in the

statehouse, governor bobby gentle, is about to enter the republican race. what are his chances? senator cassidy: oh, my gosh. bobby, when he first ran for governor and no one thought he had a chance, he came in a close second. never underestimate the fellow. for now say he is not in the top 10. i have not focused on that, steve, beyond occasionally looking at the paper when i am home. when i am home i talked to my mother, my wife, and my daughters and believe it or not i do not talk about politics. i try not to. senator cassidy: will you make an endorsement -- host: would you make an endorsement in the race? senator cassidy: whichever candidate makes a solution. i will endorse that candidate. i am passionate. how we replaced that portion of the law is something that gives the patient's the the power, not a

big -- bureaucrat. host: david vetter is running for the statehouse. william endorse him? senator cassidy: i already have. there are other good candidates running, by the way, but i have chosen to endorse david. host: senator bill cassidy. thank you for being with us. senator cassidy: thank you. host: i going to begin with what is happening behind the scenes in advance of this ruling, if the supreme court does strike down these subsidy issue. what is happening at the white house? >> the white house is said there is not much they can do. it will be up to congress and state to fix this. the people that i talked to say they assume hhs is working on

how they can flex their muscles and go through the regulatory recess and make it easier for states to pursue the exchange, but clearly congress is going to have to do it. hence, hint, congress is not going to get their act together in time. republicans are meeting, talking about this like senator cassidy mentioned, but i think there is a little more -- the republican party, i think, is pretty far apart on what they want that replacement to look like. there's some who want subsidies and there's some who are very close to saying i am going to help out obamacare. host: i saw this headline earlier in the month -- it really is putting republicans in a quandary. why? ms. haberkorn: it's a very difficult situation because they have spent five years advocating for a repeal of the law.

and now they are basically put in a position where they are going to have to benefit those who are receiving subsidies under the law. but they do not want to be portrayed as helping the law continuing the law, because they have worked so hard for training the message they want to repeal it. and that will be particularly challenging with a 20 eight presidential election. host: what did you learn with senator cassidy? ms. attias: he will push very hard for his plan. i think i heard a little apprehension for embracing the leadership outline. i think it is more generous to call it an outline that a plan at this point. i think he will be one of those people are really was to make sure this is not perpetuating obamacare. host: which of the little about climate change and this is cyclical issue by pope francis because the republicans and democrats embracing the pope when it comes to washington in

september, and yet on this issue you can see real divide between what the pope is calling for an republicans on capitol hill. >> yes, there is a divide. i focus mostly on health care, but climate change is one of those issues where there is a divide between parties, just like on the health care law. it will be interesting to see how they respond. host: jennifer? ms. haberkorn: same thing. no republican wants to come out and say what the pope is saying is awful, but they disagree. they are trying to thread that needle. host: when the supreme court ruling does come down, you've is a sense of what will be happening in this town. melissa? ms. attias: we will look for a sign from the administration whether they call for the subsidies to continue. that one sentence solution if it does go for the challengers and

how quickly the republicans can coalesce around a plan. it is still uncertain whether more conservative members of the party would be amenable to extending anything to the health care law. so, we will be looking for the administration and republicans as to what their opening bids are in what in doubt of the will he very long goes -- be very long negotiations. host: justice kennedy? ms. attias: justice kennedy and justice roberts could be swing votes on this. justice kennedy, looking at the court for legacy. a lot of people were surprised last time when justice kennedy ruled against the aca in 2012 and are wondering if that will influences decision this time. i think you need to look of the court decision. if they rule for the challenger, that is pouring a big tank of

gasoline on the simmering obamacare tensions in washington. it will reignite them. not only will it pose a policy problem for both areas, but a political problem and there is no clear solution. host: jennifer have her corn -- haberkorn, melissa attiasd, thank for joining us on "newsmakers." we appreciate it. >> next, ashton carter and martin dempsey on training iraqi forces raid after that, a house hearing on the screening process for the transportation security administration employees. after that, florida governor jeb bush announces he is running for president. >> some was sitting front left of the