"strange inheritance." thanks so much for watching. and remember -- you can't take it with you. all over the show that does it for us here is bulls & bears. >> ♪ ♪ david: remember that one from the 70s, not giving up new york governor andrew cuomo still trying to convince amazon to reconsider building its second headquarters here in new york. hi everybody this is bulls & bears even david asman, joining me adam lashinsky, jonas max ferris and gary b. smith. >> i've had many conversations with amazon, i hope, that they reconsider.

david: cuomo confirming that he has in fact been working behind the scenes over the past weeks to try to lure the tech giant back to manhattan making a personal plea to jeff bezos, reportedly guaranteeing support for the project, support that they didn't have, from very vocal critics, led by congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez that of course is the first time around the governor is saying today that there are "other ways" that the state can get it done that could bypass these critics and so far amazon has shown no sense that they will reconsider, after being driven out of town, at this point, is this just embarrassing? should new york just let all this go? what do you think? >> well look, i think it's a little bit embarrassing but i can understand after the crime we've been talking about for a couple weeks how disastrous this was for the economy of new york. it's not a killer, but look, they gave up millions of dollars

in potential great jobs, a boom to that part of the new york city which is a little depressed but i'll be honest with you, amazon i walk away and stay away forever. this has proven to be a toxic environment and you know the game they're going to play. they will be all nice now. they will wait until there's shovels in the ground. they will wait until there's a building up at amazon, can't leave and then they will exert their muscle. just like, you know, they did it in the old days, the unions will come in and say to shut everything down and amazon won't have a choice. >> i think that where i agree with gary is that amazon will not come back, because that's the way a big company like this behaves. they've taken the hit. they've taken the heat. they will walk away and go elsewhere. i don't, by the way, fault cuomo for trying. i think he's doing what someone in his position ought to do which is to give it more than the college try which appears that's what he's doing. >> i like gary's bronx

reference. now you can't leave that's what it's going to be like. okay andrew cuomo is going overboard with it. they lost it, the deal is over. focus on the next deal you don't have to name the brooklyn bridge the bezos bridge. get the next 25,000 smaller companies to get 1,000 jobs each that'll replace the jobs that are lost. look, new york city needs to sell itself and it needs to be a place for talent and business startups. this is an established business. we don't need to bend over backwards like a place that doesn't have as much talent needs to do. that said the city needs to get politicians in line so the next deal and they don't lose those after they make a deal. that was an embarrassment, politically miss managed. we also want new york to be cool , we don't want like amazon is launching a new grocery store -type concept in l.a. they have a lot of really bad grocery stores from the 70s that it's making the city not live able for the talent. you want to make it a cool place

like l.a. and san francisco not this old city. >> you do, you do want to make it a cool place but look, long island city is in need of the investment, not new york overall but a part of it in queens could use the investment. there's not much there and although amazon may not come back, if there's just a glimmer of hope if there's just maybe a chance, i think governor cuomo is try to try and negotiate a deal. david: what kills me is it's simple math. ocasio-cortez famously said we don't want to give amazon all its money. well it was a tax abatement, a $3 billion tax abatement for $28 billion in tax revenue over the same period of time. a return of investment of 28 billion on 3 billion even if it was giving amazon 3 billion is a question whether that was a give or not, but i mean, can't they just do the math? >> well you know the problem with new york is the rent is too

darn high and taxes are too darn high for everybody and you can't just give one giant company very profitable and valuable a break while everyone else suffers and that's i think where a lot of the animosity came from and it's deserved. get more housing, get better transportation possibly lower taxes. david: but they were promising some of that. amazon was promising to do some of that. >> there was very little infrastructure related to this as people have no subways, the worst its ever run in the city's history and they're talking heli pads, it pitched bad to the people who have to ride that horrible train that's always delayed under construction. >> the seven train i took it for a few years. >> they got to fix these problems and google is here it's a very expensive place to be but the talent is here they want to live here and that's great. focus on those kind of deals keep it a good city for everyone else. >> i just want to go back to adam he said he agrees with me i've never ever heard of that before so please, adam. >> can't possible be true. david: i think you two have

agreed before. >> you wonder what's going to happen in the future though. i mean, you know, they have have a whole with aoc there a whole new regime the left which dominates new york city starting to dominate a good part of the metropolitan areas of this country, want to extract their pound of flesh even before these companies lay the keystone in. >> gary, i think you're missing the point here, because seriously i'm going to start of take your earlier joke line seriously and play it out. the left, the union-connected left, never would have done something like this, they would have if they wanted to take their piece of the action, they would have taken their piece of the action. they said no, we don't want your action. all i'm saying is right or wrong i think it was a stand. >> well then they played their cards wrong. they should have won a piece of

the action after amazon can't go anywhere. they played their cards too early. david: they did. >> that's the mistake they made >> adam you can't deny this city has a flakey mayor. with bloomberg this never would have happened. >> locally there was always a progressive element in new york he could get a lot of business and a lot of deals done for the city that benefited everybody. granted it's a little more left- leaning in these rising stars but the mayor -- david: i couldn't agree with you more and now what killed me about this mayor is he's a complete hypocrite. he was one of the guys who wrote amazon in on the deal. he was talking about how great it was until ocasio-cortez came and all of his left buddies and then he flipped completely 180 degrees and amazon became the worst enemy so if he flips again and goes with cuomo, correct me if i'm wrong, guys but i think that this is really exposed the so-called progressive or progress ever/

socialistic left for what they are, complete and utter hypocrites who assad am was saying they don't have the same sensibility that the moderate left represented by the unions used to have so i think this might, maybe not the far left in new york city, but at least exposes them raw, doesn't it? >> well you could say that this mayor is playing with the temperature reading and i don't think she ever would have been behind amazon or gotten into when this mayor thought it was politically advantageous for his future career to bring jobs to the city, he would go that way and then all of a sudden thins shift and it looks like you want to be a progressive star and then he wants to play that card. that's the hillary clinton mentality where you're taking surveys all the time. i don't think aoc operates that way and doesn't mean it's good for the city but she's at least consistent people believe in that honesty. david: but you see this list i don't know if we have a full screen of it but you see the

list of the letter that went out to amazon. it was kind of down on your knees all these liberal democrat s, they now are called moderate democrats i guess, because they're not socialists but this is the letter that went to jeff bezos and as you go down you scroll down to the actual names, the list is long a group of old powerful democratic leaders in new york, you could see part of it there. some of them are in politics some are in business, but it includes people like jeffly meek s and others. i think this is war on part of these moderate democrats against the socialists who want to keep business out of new york. >> who wrote the letter to ocasio-cortez though? that's the person you got to be in war with. that's the ultra liberal wing that throws amazon out. >> look, i think this is fun and interesting to try to pit these groups against each other. >> not fun for us living in new

york. go ahead. >> david this group, the letter of it that you just put up, they are more than anything else, they want the business, they're asking for the business that they lost. i don't see it as ideological. david: so are you saying they're dead though, politically dead that they don't have power that it won't amount to anything >> oh, no they absolutely have power, i mean, it amounted to the influence of not having 25,000 jobs in long island city in new york, so i mean, whether alexandria ocasio-cortez has power or not she has influence. david: when people are standing up for the new yorkers who want amazon to be here and after all it's the majority of new yorkers that wanted amazon to come in they are now disappointed by their representatives, ocasio-cortez may be getting a lot of headlines but if she keeps going against the will of the people doesn't she pay a price? >> i mean, in this case, she's a lot like donald trump. she's very focused on her base,

and she's consistent with, and i think as jonas said quite well she's not inconsistent in what her values and what her principles are, and it's similar to what trump does. david: well i would suggest that trump's success political success has a lot to do with what he has donald actually changing the economy, but i'm just throwing that out there, adam we've got to move on. >> it's my time to respond i understand that. david: listen you can't argue with the job situation right now meanwhile, democrats pushing government-run healthcare without a price tag. we'll speak with one doctor who says this is the only plan to fix dysfunction in the healthcare system. we'll debate him, coming up next >> universal healthcare, ending private insurance, you know 180 million americans use private insurance? that would be gone under some of these crazy ideas. this isn't just any moving day.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

>> $32 trillion, putting these people into a healthcare system medicare which is already going bankrupt in 10 years medicare for all means medicare for none. david: that was louisiana senator and medical doctor bill cassidy on our show yesterday criticizing for the new push by more than 100 democrats for medicare for all. government-run health care. a bill that would transition the u.s. healthcare system into a single payer program. we're joined now by another doctor with a very different perspective, adam gaffney, president of physicians for a nation health program. doctor, you have been quoted as saying accept no substitutes only single payer medicare for all can fix the grave dysfunctions and in justices of the american healthcare system, but the cost would be extraordinary would it

not? >> well i would argue that the cost is already much too much. i mean, we spend twice as much as other countries with other high income nations. we're spending well more than we need to, and reality is that single payer systems are in fact less costly, more efficient so we can actually save money by moving to a universal healthcare system. >> we talked on the show there's a lot of pieces why we spend a lot here drug companies advertising that are different than other countries but your doctor, actually on the doctor side you sign with a lot of doctors i read some of your proposals. the salaries of doctors in america is higher than everywhere else except maybe luxembourg and it means they're doing more testing because a lot of their salaries are based on how they get the bill going up they get cuts of that. how do you reduce that salary to levels of other countries to make this work and also relate that to how doctors in america have to borrow all of this money they come out of school i have a client with a huge loan portfolio, the cost from

residency only now starting to make money how do you transition to a lower pay rate than you'd have in another country. >> two points first the biggest savings in moving to a single payer healthcare system is eliminating or reducing the enormous amount of waste in our health insurance industry. the overhead of private insurers is greater than 10%, traditional medicare closer to 2% so that's the biggest sorgum of savings and the second biggest source of savings is as you said high pharmaceutical costs we spend twice as much on drugs than other high income nations. >> but the doctor piece that you deal with how do you address that? >> frankly you could move to a single payer system in an affordable way and still pay doctors roughly comparable to what they're being paid now. it's not necessary, you can argue whether it's important, it's not necessary to achieve universal health coverage. >> you're saying the cuts are coming out of the health care, the drug costs, the hospital side not the doctor side. >> and the administrative side is the number one. it doesn't have to. >> so dr. gaffney that's where

it sounds like you'd get the bulk of how to pay for this. george mason university study estimates that a bernie sanders- type of plan would cost over 32.6 trillion so to put that into perspective it nearly doubles the size of our already bloated federal government right now, so don't we need more than just cutting back on those costs that you just mentioned in order to pay for this? >> so that study that you mentioned, it actually estimated that overall healthcare spending would be well under single payer actually $2 trillion less over 10 years. yes more of the money would be going to the federal government but overall as a nation even according to that libertarian think tank study we would be spending less an overall healthcare expenditures which is what people care about. they care about how much overall spending in healthcare. also let me just add we also have major problems that we have to fix. we have 29 million people uninsured in this country. we have 44 million people who are under insured which means they have insurance but there's

gaps in the coverage so big as if they aren't insured at all. 35% of americans go without needed care due to costs. i would argue that that is un affordable. >> this is adam lashinsky in san francisco. i'm going to ask the doctor a political question. everything you have said on this program, so far, makes 110% sense to me. it's like brain dead obvious to me that everything you're saying is right. what do you think we have to do to get the people who don't see it that way, to agree with you? >> well first of all a majority of the country already does agree with us. every poll shows greater than 50 % support from medicare for all, a poll late last year found 70% support. >> they don't know what that would entail. >> even 50% support for republicans, so i think people love this idea, people don't like private health insurance very much they don't ticly like cigna, united health, they could careless if they no longer have those companies covering them but what they care about is who they can go to as a doctor, where they can go to in terms of

hospitals. they care about their doctors and hospitals and drugs they need. they don't care about the private insurance company that happens to be their coverage. >> if the hospitals and the doctors all, if the hospitals go out of business and doctors all just no longer work because they're not getting paid below market-rates it says will cut their pay by over 40%, i mean, then where are you going for care if that happens? >> many nations have done this, none of them have had their hospitals close or their doctors flee. david: that's not quite true, doctor. it's not quite true in the united kingdom where there have been hospitals closed down. i would just add specifically one thing about the united kingdom, a country i know very well because my wife was there for a month after a stroke that she had and supposedly the best brain care hospital they had, queen square hospital. it was filthy doctor, i was there for one month every single day. the equipment was falling apart.

the medicine were inadequate to the diseases. the penicillin resistant diseases that all of the patients around my wife ended up getting led to some deaths in that ward. how can you guarantee that our quality of healthcare won't go down the way it has gone down in great britain as a result of their socialized system. >> i think there's three points i'd make. first of all i can't speak to your experience but overall the healthcare systems of these countries are quite high quality overall. they have higher life expectanc ies than we do. lower infant mortality. david: the number of penicillin resistant diseases they have in the united kingdom is much greater than it is here. much greater there. >> i've been at multiple hospitals in the united states. these are problems that exist everywhere i can't speak to your experiences and i'm not trying to invalidate them but overall these nations achieve better results with less money. in fact in the uk people love their healthcare system it's like a national religion.

david: hold on a second gary go ahead. >> dr. gaffney first of all you were damn with think praise by adam if he was true to his word he would have been 125% behind this. >> [laughter] >> once you're over 100 why not >> i'll take it. >> but here is my question. i am obviously going to be the opposite of adam on this and my question to you is why can't the free market work? i'll give you an example the only area inflation in the medical community where prices have actually come down is the only area where the market is allowed to work and that's plastic surgery. i would argue that the medical market is basically a monopoly or an ollie gop oily in that the market cannot work at all. doctors like yourself can't advertise, i can't compare price s i can't go into a hospital and know what i'm going to pay before i go out if the

market could work like it does with auto insurance, there's no one out there that lacks for auto insurance, no matter if they're willing to pay for it. why can't we do that in healthcare, why do you want to go to some centralized soviet- run medicare for all that you know is going to be inflated cost? >> i don't know that it'll be an inflated cost but a lower cost. a true free market in healthcare is something that no civilized nation would ever accept. you have people literally dying on the street because they couldn't afford the care. you can't have a free market in the healthcare when you think something is a right that everybody should have that people should have healthcare by virtue of being a human being that you cannot leave it to the free market that means that people who can afford it get it and everybody else suffers. i work in an intensive care unit i've seen people come in with life threatening complications because they couldn't afford care because they didn't have insurance. i don't want to see that any more and we need as a nation to

decide that that's not going to be acceptable. >> you're making a really strong moral argument. how are you going to get a million $s to take a pay cut because a lot don't want to take medicaid or medicare because it's lower reimbursement rates and they don't even take insurance at this point. how do you get so many to take a pay cut. >> again, you can achieve hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative savings and pharmaceutical savings you actually don't need a major cut in the salaries of healthcare workers in order to make it happen. david: one point of order the last inspector general's report of medicare showed there's a 10% waste in fraud not 2% that would add up to $60 billion a year, but doctor please come back again and we appreciate your point of view and arguing it here. >> thank you for having me. david: a rebel at apple shareholder meeting tries to get the company to admit its ideological bias. we're live in cuppertino, california with an update, california with an update, coming up next. you still stressed about buying our first house, sweetie?

yeah, i thought doing some hibachi grilling would help take my mind off it all. maybe you could relieve some stress by calling geico for help with our homeowners insurance. geico helps with homeowners insurance? they sure do. and they could save us a bundle of money too. i'm calling geico right now. cell phone? it's ringing. get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and condo insurance.

david: apple's board of directors facing a challenge from an activist shareholder today claiming that the company lacks political diversity, and that it is a major risk for shareholders. let's go straight to susan li she's outside the annual shareholders meeting in cuppertino, california a lot of action but let's focus on this what are the details, susan? >> yeah, so it was supposed to be a shareholder's meeting taking place here, outside the $5 billion apple campus in cuppertino, california. they did a bit of that. we did have a lot on the agenda today including approving the eight member board so yes, bob i ger is still there, tim cook, andrea jung formerly of the avon , the cosmetics company, and others as well but then really diverse diversified into a discussion about political view a 100 minute presentation on stage with tim cook taking a q & a at the end of it and 30 minutes of the discussion really

circulated and focused on this discussion of political views and whether or not there's an acceptance of different political views here in silicon valley. there was a controversial shareholder proposal that was voted upon today overwhelmingly rejected by 98% of shareholders, but what this proposal wanted was to have the board nominees basically tell everybody where their political leanings were, and then we had questions to tim cook, being asked again, what happens about conservatives that work at apple who feel their voices can't be heard and won't be accepted. well tim cook says that look, you know, we are not political, we want, we don't want to polarized world and we're open to different views and have this person come talk to me. now let's not talk about the actual shareholder proposal and that conservative activist group that made this proposal and was accepted at this shareholder meeting needs to be voted upon that was already a success, and the sec, to try to block it and now there is ample evidence of

the company and silicon valley generally operated in hedge money that conservative people, thoughts and values and as i mentioned again tim cook says that is not true. we haven't donated one penny to any political campaign. >> susan this is adam lashinsky i'm up in san francisco welcome to california i'm sorry it wasn't former for you this week. >> thank you. >> look if it's freezing where you're coming from, right? what i think is so interesting about this is that first of all, this is completely irrelevant to the business of the company. that said, this guy is basically right and tim cook has all of these extremely liberal views which are generally very popular at apple so what was the reaction in the room when he said well we're not political, we would never be political. >> well, he says we're not political, we are capital it'ses but he does point out that we are pro-immigration and we are let me get this right, pro-

environment as well, so i think he kind of hedged it a bit there are obviously liberal views especially in silicon valley, but as we know, tim cook savvy ceo of one of the largest companies in the world, so i think he actually i think hit the right tone when it comes to balance between both sides. >> susan, jonas fare us here. there's definitely a crazy bubble here with the space ship behind you that costs billions of dollars and they are controlling more of what everybody thinks and i see how everybody is staring at their phone all the time and your date on it, and your whole world surrounds around a world created by this one company and did that come up the power that they have over our behavior? everything from sleeping to health, is that did that come up they don't want to talk about that when they talk about conservative versus liberal. >> well okay, given that it is a shareholder's meeting and they want to of course i would imagine want to increase shareholder value in the company and the stock holdings, you know

, i think apple probably wants to control every aspect of your life, because they talked a lot about wearables and how they're increased by 50% in sales last year and will push more into health and wellness and read your ecg reading so they can read your heart rates, et cetera et cetera, so i think apple in a business sense they really want to control more of your life more of your entertainment as well because they are talking about services being really the bumper for the company in the face of slowing iphone sales. >> susan i do think that's where apple is headed since they've really reached a point of saturation in their iphone sales and the services segment so for shareholders there in that meeting, there are rumors that apple is unveiling a fold able phone, or perhaps it can fold in thirds with a flexible screen, i mean, i don't know if you remember i love the flip phone. that way you don't accidentally hang up on anybody, or pick up a call that you may not want to, so any clarity on what apples doing with their new product regarding the iphone?

>> okay, i think you're talking about the foldable phone trend that we saw from huawei which offers that, $2,600, that's a pretty premium price and also samsung unveiled the first basically consumer-ready fold able device and that's selling at $2,000 as well, so we did have goldman sachs coming out i'll tell you this it looks like apple and others at least when it comes to lenses and the camera displays they are about two years behind samsung so i don't think apple is ready to be honest to be coming out with a foldable phone in fact i think they are behind when it comes to 5g releases as well. >> i'm going to throw this out there for everyone just to think about. i find it in going back to susan 's original reporting, i find it disconcerting that even some of these, i think that it's fine that the questions are coming up to cook about diversity and the political views, but i find it kind of disconcerting i think american

businesses taking a track down the wrong road here, that they have to be so politically correct. if i'm a shareholder all i want apple to do is make as much money as possible. if i'm a customer, i just want apple to be as productive for me as possible. when they start having to worry about their political views, and is their corporate board balanced and things like that, i think it destroys the efficiency and the effectiveness of american business, but look, maybe i grew up in corporate america in the 70s maybe i'm old school. i throw it out there for everyone. david: well i would just say that 98% of the shareholders were at the meeting voted against mr. dan, so people say that that number alone proves that maybe he did have a point that in fact if 98% of the people disagree with his views, perhaps he does have one. >> but gary would have voted against that too for the reasons he said even if he agreed with

the guy. david: it's hard to avoid politics so tesla's cheaper model 3coms with a catch. you can only order it online. we'll debate elon musk's latest strategy coming next.

david: the market did not respond well to the major announcements we reported on last night, chief among them, the news that tesla will be closing most stores, and moving their sales online. this is a move that's aimed at cutting costs so that the company can finally sell its base model 3 at the starting price of 35,000 bucks let's bring in car coach, lauren to answer if this is a smart move by elon musk. what do you think, lauren? >> it sounds like a pretty desperate move to me. closing down stores which is the interface with consumers to see the vehicles and buy the vehicles, telling them they can only buy them online listen ifl

numbers he's got to makeover $40,000, selling vehicles over $40,000 a car even to come close to breaking even. he takes a loss on every single vehicle. you can not have a loss and make it up in volume and it seems pretty desperate including the layoffs that are taking place, it is a pretty bold statement on what "the situation" is. >> lauren this is gary smith. i completely agree with you. another issue, i think, and i want your comments on this, is just the whole distribution model. first of all, living here in ver o beach i think i'd have to drive an hour to get my tesla service. i was just reading an article where norway is tesla's biggest customer per capita and they have had myriad service problems people wait weeks until the problems accumulate and then put on a wait list. what do you think the impact of that is down the road? >> i think that's going to frustrate a lot of loyal customers people that purchase tesla expect good service. they purchased a car with the same expectations like he says

he's a tech company whether you bought an apple iphone or a ford mustang if you've got a problem you want to be able to get it serviced quickly. apple stores can do it, ford can do it why can't tesla do it so they've obviously tried to beat that dealer model. and they failed. >> lauren, i mean it's a long term question lauren about is it really following the model t ford where he gets the cost down for electric cars that everybody has to buy one because it used to be a luxury purchase owning before a model t, but i know the whole internet is about disintermediation but like the dealer network is a profit center for car companies they make all the money on the trade- ins they have the service arm like it's not money any more >> don't forget the floor mats. >> like why is that something you want out of the business model it seems like you want to grow that and trade in other cars at a low wholesale price like what's going on there they don't make money from these things? >> the dealer works in a franchise-type of thing like a honda dealership for example,,

those are local people, actually having they do make their money mostly on service and collision but they sell the vehicles and create a business relationship. he's not looking to do that. he said from the beginning he wants to break the dealer model and that his long term goal is to have people buy all their vehicles online at a reasonable price. you have to remember there are already vehicles that are plug- in hybrids available today. you can buy a nissan leaf that's a plug-in hybrid, you can buy a chevy volt ev that's in that price point so he's already entering a price point that already has vehicles in that category, people buy tesla's because they're very loyal to its unique following. the problem is you lose those huge loyal followers, when you can't service the product that they pay for and expect to get. >> to be fair, this car is nice so let's put it in perspective. >> well i don't know about that i have to say there's a really great product on the market i've driven the audi e, the bmw i-8 i've just reviewed it i have to say really impressive product.

>> it's $160,000 though let's be honest. >> well for the i8 right but there's other vehicles coming out. you could buy a bmw i3. >> it's not profitable though. >> lauren my question is -- >> none of them are profitable not even for tesla. it's not a profitable company in the big picture. >> adam go! >> he doesn't even use them. so we can't tell real numbers and he doesn't offer real number s. >> here is what i hear you saying lauren. tesla did well for quite a few years who has made a product that its customers love, but that the thing against tesla is it was always going to have a hard time making a leap to being a mass production company. you have to do things like have customer service and have reliability and so on. you're saying they're not going to make it, period. >> i don't know if they make it in the long-haul. it's hard to tell with elon musk i think he's doing great with this spacex project but when it

comes to the car business it's very hard to be successful. the amount of product that he's putting out versus the real number of sales for the month of february which is a little over 5,000 vehicles is not enough to keep any company afloat. any regular car company would dump that product line and create something else but because he's as you say a really great word, type vehicle, i think he's got his followers and we'll see how long it lasts it's not going to dye off tomorrow but he might sell it off too. david: lauren fix we appreciate you coming in always it's a pleasure to see you thank you very much. well huawei's chief surf advisory it officer spoke exclusively to maria bartiromo today. wait until you hear what he says about the company's relationship with chinese communist government. that is coming next. treating advanced lung cancer. treatments like keytruda with chemotherapy really break through barriers that we had

not too many years ago. (avo) another tru story with keytruda. in a clinical trial, significantly more patients lived longer and saw their tumors shrink than on chemotherapy alone. (dr. kloecker) it's changed my approach to treating patients. (avo) keytruda may be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you have advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer and you do not have an abnormal "egfr" or "alk" gene. keytruda helps your immune system fight cancer, but can also cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body. this can happen during or after treatment and may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have new or worse cough, chest pain, shortness of breath, diarrhea, severe stomach pain or tenderness, nausea or vomiting, rapid heartbeat, increased hunger or thirst, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in urine or eyesight, muscle pain or weakness, joint pain, confusion or memory problems, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. these are not all the possible side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had

an organ transplant, had or plan to have a stem cell transplant, or have lung, breathing, or liver problems. (dr. kloecker) any day you can give good news to a patient is a good day. (avo) living longer is possible. it's tru. keytruda, from merck. with more fda-approved uses for advanced lung cancer than any other immunotherapy.

>> are you saying that huawei technologies has not stolen trade secrets from other companies in the west? >> what i'm saying is that the pressure on huawei is part of geopolitical dynamic between the u.s. and china on the theft of intellectual property by the china government that's not us. the china government does not speak for us. we don't speak through the china government. i applaud the efforts of the united states and others to try to crack down on the global theft of intellectual property, which has been a disgrace over

the last 15 years, that we haven't done enough about it. david: that was huawei technology's chief security officer, andy purdy speaking exclusively with our own maria bartiromo, saying that the company's being treated unfairly , because of tensions between the u.s. and china, so, gang, do you believe him? >> not at all, david. look, this is a michael cohen of companies, in a sense they started in the beginning, steal ing from nortel, and its continued you're stealing from everyone now saying please, trust us now, and they're not a private company they have communists on their board and many ties to chain a so no, i do not believe them. >> okay they're basically both right in this interview. first of all, the robot would tell you if he could speak some day when he was artificial intelligence that they stole this technology that t-mobile used with this robot they got from japan where it tests the phones and what is different is that now, the government is acting very aggressively against this sort of behavior that's

been going on for decades from china so it is correct that because of the trade war we're stepping this up at this point in the past they wouldn't have put anybody in prison over tappy the robot theft or whatever specific case this was so they are both rightist because of the trade war but because they let china getaway with ip theft for so long. >> okay but we're confusing things that are very confusing, there is a difference between stealing trade secrets on the one hand, let's just assume huawei and others have been guilty of that in the past, with being cybersecurity threats being national cybersecurity threats in other words are they putting technology into their equipment that will allow the chinese government to snoop on the u.s. government? there simply is no proof for that. nobody disagrees that there's no proof of that. the question is are they capable of it yes. will they do it, we don't know and by the way, heather, cisco probably has democrats and republicans on their board, so

it's really not meaningful that they have communists on their board. they are chinese. david: republicans and democrat s are a little different from communist party members. gang, we got to cut now this one short, are you happy with your home? a lot of millennials have some serious buyer's regret. we're going to tell you why, coming next. >> ♪ ♪

stop fearing your alarm clock... with zzzquil pure zzzs. a drug-free blend of botanicals with melatonin

that supports your natural sleep cycle so you can seize the morning. zzzquil pure zzzs. david: homeownership is at its highest point since 2014. but 2/3 of millenial homebuyers say they regret buying a home citing maintenance costs and other hidden fees. >> i think the times they are a changing. my older daughter just bought a home in medford, massachusetts.

it might as well have been san francisco given how much she paid square foot for the place. but she is running into the same place. millennials just want to be near work and the trendy bar. the whole idea of homeownership, the ongoing costs, i think it's changing. i think homeownership is not like it was back in the 40s, 50s and 60s. >> i'm sure your daughter doesn't fit with what i'm about to say. i think they don't want any adversity. they would like things to be perfect and easy for them all the time. >> going up with what adam is saying, the snowflakes need to watch something other than the home shows that make it look like you are making money with a

kitchen renovation. saving money and the stock market. >> most of millennials were old enough to remember what happened in 2008. maybe there so is fear of home prices softening. but 61% homeownership, that's great for the economy. even if there is regret. telling me the american dream is still alive and kicking. day it's a lot d. david: it's a lot of the middle aged folks that watch those home improvement shows on television. >> youth is wasted on the young. david: somebody once told me you should not buy a house unless you are planning on using it.

buying a home as an investment is not good. >> adam summed up the socialist communist thing. he wants the suffering. he (announcer) the following is a paid presentation for prostagenix, brought to you by prostatereport.com. (upbeat music) ♪ hi, this is larry king. over 30 million men in america have prostrate problems. i know, i was one of them. and all these natural prostate supplements like the ones i have here in front of me are everywhere. drugstores, health food stores, on the internet, and all over tv, selling millions of bottles every year.