it. brookshire. >> can you imagine growing up with ben? >> nothing out of ben. all right. terror attacks on three continents and at least one of the terror suspects was once being tracked in france but they stopped tracking him. that's where some here say we should let the nsa go back to tracking and gathering data on bad guys here to help stop them from doing something terrible here. are they right? hi everybody. welcome to forbes on fox. let's go in focus with steve forbes michael, elizabeth mcdonald, sabrina shafer john tamney and bruce jackson. steve, start it up again. the nsa surveillance. >> absolutely david. what they have now is unworkable. the telecom companies don't know what they're supposed to be doing with this data. just as it makes it harder to do basic data mining.

that's not listening in on conversations. all it means is they see a pattern, and then they have to go through various warrants and getting permission before they can take it a step further, but it's a useful tool. especially as terrorists now get more and more sophisticated about their own use of social media and communicating with each other in code. >> okay. john take this data. >> i don't like it. i think anything that limits the government to act is a good thing. the reality is that the nsa is tracking everything. it's ultimately tracking nothing, and there's no way for it to credibly know what is and what is not a threat. i don't like the idea of giving up so much liberty for really nothing in return in terms of enhanced security. >> i don't know if nothing in return. look what's happening over there. they gave up focussing on this guy in france and he ended up beheading somebody. here by the way, are the polls. america is divided because most

people think the nsa prevents tabbs, but they also think that it violates civil liberties. it's kind of yes, you violate civil liberties, but you get the bad guys. >> well right, and these three attacks that we just experienced are terrible horrifying and, of course i can understand why people are saying we need to have even -- give the government even more leniency in terms of tracking down terrorists. i'm sympathetic with what john is saying. first of all, we need to be very careful. we were just having the conversation a year ago about the nsa overreach. we have to make sure that we're not allowing government to have far too much control over their ability to eavesdrop on the american people. at the same time we can also get confused by we have so much data. you're asked to not find the pin in the haystack when that happens. very often we want smarter, more strategic investigations rather than just sort of these blanket eavesdropping of the american people. >> senator dianne feinstein, democrat in california said that 54 terror plots were

interrupted because of the nsa. the nsa had interrupted those plots in 2013. that was two years ago. listen fbi, nsa has said if they had this program before 9/11 possibly 9/11 could have been stopped. we live in an era of 75 bioterrorist type threats out there of super bowls, of marathons, of you know 4.3 million people riding the subways. we have more to fear from the irs than the nsa right now. >> i am going to throw out another name. general keith alexandriaeralexander. he said there were over 50 plots that were stopped because of nsa surveillance. >> i think we might need more updates on that. i don't agree with a widespread dragnet on the american people to gather information, but we probably need more updates on what bad guys are getting and so forth. i think what most people when they hear about the nsa gathering information, they remember that we were spying on angela merkel or the late king of saudi arabia took fistfuls

of viagra. we need more information on how this is working. >> right. >> well you know milton freeman used to say in wartime you have to give up some of your freedom, but we have been at this for a long time. i mean 9/11 that was 14 years ago. if we have to go another decade at fighting terror does that mean another decade without some of our rights? >> david, i think you hit the nail on the head. we are at war. whether the president realizes it or not, so i'm for this for all the reasons that steve pointed out. >> steve, how long does this go on? again, when we go on another decade in this war against terror does that mean another decade of slow erosion of our freedoms? >> david, this is not an erosion of freedom. what the nsa is doing is not eavesdropping. they're doing data mining to see if the pattern is there. this is something wrong is happening. only and then when they see such a pattern, they have to go through various procedures warrants and the like before they can take further steps. in terms of defending ourselves,

government does have the basic fundamental task of defending us. defending the realm. this is a good tool to do it. >> i think john made this in terms of erosion of freedom. is there no erosion of freedom going on, john? >> there's by definition erosion of freedom going on and we have to accept these counter factuals offered by politicians that if we hept been doing this we would have saved you from this. the reality of the world is a dangerous place, and despite all they're doing, bad things are going to continue to happen. i don't like the idea of empowering the state in a way that look more and more into our lives. that's the quickest way to ruin a country. particularly one like the united states. if we're allowing what we were founded on to be eroded. >> on the other hand you look at the videos coming from overseas of these terror attacks. particularly the one in tunisia. you begin to see that happening in america, then i suspect it won't be a question anymore. >> yeah i think you're right. it won't become a question

anymore because people realize that you know the nsa, there are a lot of good guys that work there. i don't like erosion of privacy. i don't like it at all, but we're dealing with sdsh let me give you one example. a co-conspirator in 9/11 -- bra 9/11 was calling from a statehouse in yemen into san diego. security officials said if they knew that was going on they could have caught it and possibly unravelled the 9/11 plot. >> sabrina, i must admit when you look at the videos of what's going on overseas you think of that happening here and, again, we don't have to think too hard because there have been -- there was at least one beheading that took place here in the workplace. we have had that kind of terror. not on a massive scale like they are overseas but if that happens here i think the nsa is going to be given a free hand. >> absolutely. look, i think we have to be extremely sympathetic to what's happening around the globe and recognize that we are just as vulnerable certainly. i think that the question is are we able to sort of toggle between civil liberties and national security and we want to make sure that we -- as you

have said we don't know how long this war is going to go on for. it's already been going on for more than a decade. we have to make sure that the law that we implement now are not going to fundamentally change the nature of this country two decades from now. >> you know bruce, this is what bothers me. i think everybody here including you, by the way, you're more liberal than conservative but i think we all share a fear of government overreach. we've seen it happen. whether it's a republican like richard nixon or a democrat like barack obama, it is a tendency of government to overreach. the longer we have these policies on the books and these practices by nsa on the books, in practice maybe it becomes permanent and maybe they go overboard. >> i think what we need is you know we just had the whole debate in congress. after a few months we need some more specific examples of how this is working in our best interest because we didn't really get the feinstein example until they debated this and people are, like okay i guess

i can get that. we need more updates. >> let me ask steve. you know what i'm talking about, government overreach. we're going to be talking about obama care next. isn't there a possibility that the longer these policies are in place, the more they become embedded in our culture and do erode freedom? >> that's the basic thing about a democracy, david. you have to make sure government doesn't overreach. what the nsa has been doing in terms of data mining is legitimate. the real threat comes from agencies like the irs or the epa, which is gross overreach and is a real threat to civil liberties. in terms of privacy, google you can go on that and see somebody's backyard for crying out loud. >> true. that's true. it's happening whether we like it or not. thank you very much. did the ceo of one of the largest insurers in america just tell us the government already has taken over health care in america, and it doesn't have anything to do with the supreme court ruling. former attorney

general alberto gonzalez. now back to "forbes on fox."

the supreme court this week validating obama care once again, and the president claiming that obama care does not equal government health care. take a listen. >> this has never been a government takeover of health care despite cries to the contrary. >> but the ceo of aetna, the big insurer, just called the government its biggest customer and went on to say this. >> they're paying us a lot of money, and they have a right to give us some insight into how they think we should run our business. >> wow. the government deserves to tell aetna how to run its business and, john you say that's proof the government is already taking over health care. >> this is so bad and also so predictable. all we have to do is go back to 2013. morgan stanley, the investment bank freely admitted that its number one client was government and that is the problem when you take money from government in the first place. you are no longer in the business of profit. you are certainly political masters who don't care about

profit. now that health care companies have gotten so in bed with government this is the inevitable result and it's going to wreck traditional forms of health care simply because they're no longer doing it for profit. they're serving, again, political masters who don't have a clue about how to deliver an important product. >> bruce, we have the aetna ceo saying yeah the government is managing the company. >> well, it certainly is working for him because aetna's share price is at an all had time high. what this is doing is bringing a set of quality measures and accountability to the health plans they didn't have before. >> accountability and the government? i thought that was an oxymoron. >> no. no listen they have now an under medicare advantage. if are you aetna, you have a set of quality measures and a star rating system so now these plans have to answer the seniors phone calls more quickly, improve health outcomes, and then they get paid a little more from the government. it's a competitive thing.

>> well steve, i have to agree with bruce on one point. as soon as the decision was announced by the supreme court on thursday the stocks the health care stocks were booming. they were up double digits in some cases. they see the money, taxpayer money, flowing into their companies, right? >> sure. that's what is happening. you don't have social d socialism does not mean you take over companies anymore. you make their survival dependent on the u.s. government. if you play along, you'll get rich. meanwhile, health care suffers. prices go up. quality goes down. innovation goes out the window. in the meantime those are in the hands of the government. government will treat you very well as long as you play the game. the rest of the people suffer for it. >> and imac just to explain why the health care stocks went up so much when the supreme court val daylightedidated obama care health care subsidies, all of them together, will add up to $8 49 billion, almost $1 trillion over the next ten years. a lot of that will go right into

the health care companies. >> i'll tell you, that spending has about doubled over the last 25 years. government spending. what's also happening too because of this government spending doubled thereabouts the last 25 years, you see a lot of consolidation, mergers in the insurance industries hospitals. these guys know -- >> it will be less choice for the consumer but, of course the consumer is the government now. not the individual policyholders. >> less choice higher prices less accountability to patients. these guys know if you are not at the table, you're on the menu. they have to consolidate to have more bargaining power with the federal government. >> all right. mike have you this unholy alliance between government and business. we've seen that so often before. how do we break it? is it possible to break it? >> it's easy to break, david. republicans need to come up with a plan that gives the consumer the choice instead of having to do what the government says and makes the dollars portable with the consumer. this way you can move to a free market system. look at things like latex surgery that are not in

insurance plans. they come bay down because of innovation. >> well sabrina, you're in washington. in washington are the republicans or anybody coming out with a solution like this? a way to get into obama care and make it more focused on the individual rather than the government? >> sure. there are plenty of plans out there. lots of very bright policymakers and, you know think tank analysts who are working on this. the bigger issue is will republicans have someone in the white house xshgs will they have the congress to help them because it's leer that the supreme court is no longer going to help end obama care. it's going to have to happen in the legislature, and, look i mean just to bruce's point, bruce, you are a nice person but you are misguided on this. obama care is at the core about the centralization and concentration of both power and money, and the aetna ceo just you know admitted that. the bottom line is that this is removing any kind of market from health care. >> we'll give you a chance to

respond. >> well, i would say, okay it's buried in these rules and so forth that the plans now have sets of guidelines, and they have -- under the bush drug benefit you have more competitive bidding. >> so frankly -- >> hold on a second. final word has to go to steve. isn't this going to become a key element of the 2016 presidential election if you think obama care is working as bruce does or do you think it's not working? >> it's going to be key. republicans will come up with plans starting with getting rid of the employer mandate and the individual mandate and getting a real free market where you get more for less. >> last word from steve. meanwhile, the cashin in gang getting ready to roll at the bottom of the hour. what do you got? >> hi, david. is the supreme court making a supreme turn to the left? why that could spell trouble ahead. plus is america now looking to

help iran with their nuclear program? cashin in. see you at 11:30. >> up here first. first it was four million. now a lawmaker saying the number of people hit by that cyber security breach could be more like 32 million. just how bad is it getting, and are we really serious about fighting it? >> you sxsd i quote, there was no information that was lost. is that accurate or inaccurate? >> the understanding that i had of that question at that time referred to p.i.i. >> it was misleading. it was a lie. it wasn't tr

>> since it's been in all public periodicals said it was china responsible for this hacking. >> i think that that would be -- >> that's a pretty simple answer. are you ready to say that it was chinese hacking or not? >> i would have to defer to my colleagues -- >> so the answer is no? >> republican senator john mccain not happy. the deposit still not getting to the bottom of that massive cyber hacking. now we're finding out the number of americans hit by it could be more than 30 million. there is a far cry from the four million the government originally claimed. china likely behind it. now it has very sensitive data to use against the u.s. steve, is the government doing anything series about it? >> as can you see from that brief clip absolutely not. the chinese are having a ball stealing it and we're dropping the ball in terms of protecting it. the attitude sort of,oh, no

real big deal shocking. >> john aren't you shoktd by what the government is not doing about it? >> no. this strikes me as much ado about nothing. if it were really a threat you would see u.s. custody share prices crashing to reflect the ability of chinese intelligence to fleece us of all sorts of data. the idea that they can outfox some of the greatest technoligical minds on earth, i don't think we should take seriously. >> well i don't think we should take the government seriously, and particularly in light of jim lapper the head of national intelligence. look at what he said about the chinese involvement. >> you have to salute the heinze for what they did. if we had the opportunity to do that i don't think we would hesitate for a minute. >> instead of fighting the chinese for what he says they did, we're saluting the chinese. >> yeah. i can't even -- words escape me. i mean this is absurd what he just said. you don't salute china for criminally hacking us.

the hypocrisy here david, is that the u.s. government goes after, you know new york presbyterian hospital for and fine it for not having good security or having medical records hacked when it itself there's no accountability. federal unions fight it all the time. the private sector faces criminal civil litigation and u.s. -- >> bruce, the -- this is kind of a cyber declaration war by the chinese. >> the fbi director said a month ago that there are two kinds of companies that -- those that have been hacked we the chinese and those that don't know they've been hacked by the chinese. it's a serious problem, and i don't think we're ignoring it. i just think maybe we're not showing our hand.

just as people personal financial, health care, and other personal records that are now exposed, and i think what is extra concerning is that every time we see one of these hacks, it's exponentially worse than the last one. this sort of war of information is getting -- is escalating very quickly, and we are not at all prepared. >> you use the word it is a war. thank you very much on that folks. meanwhile, forget about breaking the bank. most americans don't have any emergency savings in the bank. before you sound the alarm the informers are here to help.

big money manager says there's a big crash coming. now to the emergency fix to beef up your emergency savings. >> commerce value says bluechip dividend fund is pretty cheap. i like it.

>> you have an instrument maker zoosh a market leader with great management. >> you guys are terrific. thank you for doing it. on time. that's it for forbes on fox. have a great weekend. thanks for watching. keep it right here. the number oneesesesesesesesesess block continues with eric and "cashin in." >> affordable care act is here to stay. >> first it was a mandate. the supreme court ruling in favor of obama care again this week and the court upholds same-sex marriage. the court is moving less on issues like these, then that will be a costly move for america? i'm eric. welcome to "cashin in." our crew jonathan honey ebbing and michelle fields juan williams and jessica tarla. michelle justice scalia saying we should call obama care -- it sure feels to me like the scales of justice are tipping to the left. maybe even falling over to the left. >> absolutely. the supreme court is preserving obama care