captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight: the travel ban at the supreme court- - justices agree parts of president trump's controversial executive order can start now, and will hear the full case in the fall. then, senate republicans scramble to keep their health care bill alive-- releasing a revised measure amid wavering support from within the party. and, the first part of my conversation with warren buffett: we discuss inequality in the u.s. and america's shifting role in the world. >> we do not have quite the percentage of the world's g.d.p. that we had 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, but we're still the leader. the question is if we can be the moral leader as well as the

economic leader. >> woodruff: all that and more on tonight's pbs "newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for

public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: this final day of the supreme court term has revived a controversial item on president trump's agenda: his travel ban. the justices announced they will hear arguments this fall on the constitutionality of the ban. in the meantime, they reinstated a limited version of the order, affecting travelers from six mostly-muslim countries. mr. trump lauded the supreme court's action today as "a clear victory for our national security," adding: we explore the legal, and practical implications, with our regular supreme court watcher, marcia coyle of the "national law journal," and alan gomez. he covers immigration for

"u.s.a. today". welcome to you both. marcia, let's start with you. let's take this one at a time. there were two things that the court was asked to look at by the trump administration. first, to grant review on hearing the arguments on the executive order. >> right, judy. the legal challenges to the executive order focused on basically two provisions, the 90-day travel ban from six predominantly muslim countries and the 120 day suspension of the u.s. refugee assistance program. the government asks the supreme court to review two federal appellate court rulings that struck down the executive order one, and they ruled separately, claiming that the order violated the establishment clause of the constitution because it was religious discrimination. and a second ground was that the executive order exceeded the president's authority under federal immigration law.

a provision, in particular, that prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. the supreme court said it would hear arguments on the merits of those two appellate court rulings in october. >> woodruff: meantime separately the justices were asked by the trump administration to lift the injunctions that had been imposed on the travel ban. what did they say about that. >> those two federal appellate courts has approved injunctions blocking the travel ban and the suspension of the refugee program. the supreme court said that the bans would be lifted only, would be applied only against foreign nationals who had no bone fide relationship with an individual or an entity in the united states. and the court went on to explain that in terms of a bone fide relationship, it should be a

familiar relationship with an individual or fit comes to an entity, a formal documented relationship, for example a student has has been accepted at a university in the united states. >> woodruff: there had to be some connection already with the united states. >> exactly. >> woodruff: for these individuals. three justices disagreed with this partial listing. what do they say. >> justice thomas wrote for the dissenters and joined by justice alito and goar such. justice thomas was in disagreement about the partial lifting of the injunctions against the order. he said it was unworkable going to create a flood gate of litigation as the government, as government officials tried to determine what is a bonafide relationship. that would have allowed the ban and the executive order to go into full effect. >> woodruff: alan glo gomez you

report on travel immigration issues. what is the immediate effect of this ruling today? >> the met effect is that this travel ban or what's left of it can go into effect as early as thursday. it's important to note this is very different from what we saw back in january when president trump first signed his first travel ban on january 27th. if you remember at the time, everybody from these countries was blocked from entering the country so people were stranded at u.s. airports or blocked from getting on to their u.s. bound flights overseas but things have changed dramatically. green card allows for people to travel, hold visas to travel. the supreme court has ordered establishing this bone fide relationship that marcia was explaining a second ago. that's where we're going to, that's where the government will start figuring who can come in and who cannot. so there's a lot of gray area

and we do expect to see some litigation about this because it's, you if you, it's one thing if you dr. a relative in the u.s. trying to claim, that person can come in or if you have a job offer from the u.s. employer that person can come in. but what if you're just base person coming over here to have a couple meetings on a short term visa is that a bonafide reservations. if you're a tourist who has plane reservations is that bone fide. that's what we'll start in the first couple days when the ban goes into effect. >> woodruff: that's my question. just how clear are the guidelines that the justice sets down. do we assume they're scrambling today to put this in black and white to figure it out. >> there are a lot of attorneys within the department of justice and homeland security and state department and a lot of immigration advocacy attorneys who are just diving into whatever case law precedence they can find to figure out what exactly this bonafide relationship the justice provided a few examples, if you have a job offer, if you've been

admitted to a u.s. university and if you have a direct relative. but beyond that it's pretty wide open so we're trying to figure out what that means. in 2016, about 108,000 people came to the united states legally from these six countries. from a quick accounting of that the majority of them will still be allowed to enter the country under the guidelines set forth by the supreme court because most of those were refugees, had no direct ties that we're talking about. but once we get into some of that other visa categories the relationship is a little bit more tenuous that has to play out in the next few weeks to see what government determines to be a bonafide relationships and whether the courts agree with them. >> woodruff: very final quick question. the travel banished by the president last march was intended to be temporary while the government figured out vetting procedures. they said it was going to take 90 days. where does that stand?

>> that started last week at the u.s. court of appeals in san francisco sort of separated that vetting review from a the this legal case we're going through right now and said the administration can start conducting that review. in short, what we're trying to do is gauge what kind of information we get from foreign governments to screen people coming into the country. so they just sthawrt started dot last monday. the clock starts now. they have, they're going to review it for 20 days, submit a list to the president then those governments will have 50 days to get off the list. and at the conclusion of that vetting review, then the president can decide whether he wants to impose more or fewer travel restrictions against different countries around the world. >> woodruff: all right. alan gomez "u.s.a. today" marcia coyle, thank you both. >> woodruff: in the day's other news: the supreme court also announced it will decide a case pitting gay rights against

religion. at issue is whether a denver baker acted legally when he refused to sell a same-sex couple a wedding cake. he cited his religious beliefs. in another case, the justices ruled seven to two that a church-run school in missouri may seek tax-payer funded grants for a new playground. president trump has again accused former president obama of failing to stop russian interference in the 2016 election. on twitter today, he charged: "the reason that president obama did nothing... is that he expected hillary clinton would win. he didn't choke, he colluded or obstructed." mr. trump insisted investigators have no evidence that his campaign aides colluded with russia. british prime minister theresa may struck a deal with a northern ireland party today to bolster her minority government. may's conservatives lost their majority in this month's election. now, they've agreed to provide some $1.3 billion in extra funding to northern ireland. that's in return for the

democratic unionist party's 10 votes in parliament. british officials now say 75 high-rise buildings tested for fire safety, have failed. the testing began after london's grenfell tower fire. the siding on that building may have fueled the blaze. the other buildings tested so far are all over the country. it is not clear how long it will take to fix the problem. in china: nobel peace laureate liu xiaobo has been released from prison to a hospital after being diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer. liu has been a leading dissident for decades. in 2009, he was sentenced to 11 years on a charge of inciting subversion. but his lawyer says today's release means little. >> ( translated ): in principle he will not be allowed to see guests, or visitors, because of the special nature of his case. under medical parole, a person is still serving a term while being treated in a medical facility, even if it's outside

of prison. liu xiaobo's case is special, i don't think the authorities will allow him to have visitors. >> woodruff: liu won the nobel peace prize in 2010 for his efforts demanding greater political freedoms and an end to one-party rule in china. back in this country: the family of philando castile has reached a $3 million settlement over his fatal shooting by a minnesota police officer. castile, a black man, was killed during a traffic stop last year. the officer was acquitted this month of manslaughter, before being fired by the city of st. anthony. takata corporation has filed for bankruptcy protection over faulty airbag inflators linked to at least 16 deaths worldwide. the company faces tens of billions of dollars in costs and liabilities, stemming from recalls and lawsuits. the filings today-- in the u.s. and japan-- clears the way for a rival company to take over most of takata's assets.

on wall street today: the dow jones industrial average gained 14 points to close at 21,409. the nasdaq fell 18, and the s&p 500 added a fraction. still to come on the "newshour": a crucial check up for republican senators' health care bill, showing the syrian refugee crisis in a new light through comic drawings, and much more. >> woodruff: it was a big day in the fight over health care reform in the united states, and the senate's push to replace obamacare. john yang digs in to the details. >> reporter: late today, the congressional budget office issued its analysis of the senate health care bill. it found that by 2026, 22 million more americans would be uninsured than under current law. it would also reduce the federal

deficit by $321 billion over that period. now that estimate of uninsured americans is slightly lower than the c.b.o. projection for the house version-- passed in may. but a rising tide of opposition is adding to the difficult dynamics of trying to pass the senate bill this week. joining me now to break all this down: julie rovner, she's chief washington correspondent for kaiser health news, and our own lisa desjardins. julie, let me start with you. drill down a little bit for us in that number of uninsured and also what did it say about the effect on premiums. >> well basically what they said is even though the senate bill is different in many ways from the house bill, they end up in roughly the same place in term of number of people who would be uninsured. basically both of the bills would double the percentage of people without insurance compared to the affordable care act. one of the sort of remarkable things that it found is that it would do it for different reasons in a different way.

for example the senate bill would peg its help with people paying premiums to a less valuable plan, a plan that would pay fewer of people's medical expenses. what they found for a lot of low income people even if they get help paying the premium they wouldn't buy insurance because they wouldn't have any help using their insurance. the deductibles have other costs which would be too high glievment of. >of. >> reporter: you were in a conference call. what did you learn. >> the 22 billion you just spoke about john, those would be low income americans and on the edge of middle class. we're talking about $30,000 income for individual. that's not poverty, that's twice the level of poverty. they found here that some of those people making under $30,000 a year would go from about 10 do 15% uninsured, maybe 40% of the people making $30,000 or less would be uninsured under this plan. it's a big hit to that one

group. >> reporter: lisa you're usually up on capitol hill for us. what does this report do to the calculus of trieks to ge trying0 bills to pass this through the senate. >> today started with very tough mat. matmany of our courses didn't know how mcconnel could do it. we had reaction in the last hour rand paul says he's not going against the bill but even the idea of bringing it up. that's a procedural vote we expect maybe wednesday called a motion to proceed. if they can't get 51 votes for even starting this debate on that bill, a very bad sign we're seeing makes me concerned. comments from senator cassidy of louisiana john mccain this is obviously not good news. across the board this is definitely not helping republicans. it's not clear how this gets across the finish line. >> reporter: of course the 51st vote would likely be the vice president that would break a tie. the ceo didn't point out a teen there's other bad news for this senate bill today. >> there was also a plethora of

interest groups, most of the healthcare industry has actually come out and they had really don't, they don't like the, direction this bill is going many some vehemently oppose it some including the national governor's association the bipartisan group barely agrees on anything said we don't think it should be done this fast. immediate kamedicaid directors e implementing the change came out with a very very strong statement saying no amount of flexibility can make up for the dollar amount of cuts to the medicaid program in this bill. according to the cvo it's 26% over 10 years. >> reporter: they made a change to this bill today. what did they do and why did they do it. >> that's right. the original senate draft we saw last week required insurers continue to sell to people who have pre existing health conditions but nothing in it to encourage or urge healthy people to actually buy insurance. so they put in today or what the cvo scored what they call a six month lockout. if you had any kind of break in

coverage of more than 60 days in the previous 12 months, you'd have to wait six months before you could get coverage under this new bill. >> reporter: you say we need 50 votes in the senate. they've got five already saying they're against it. you've got a lot on the fence. who should we be watching? who witness tell us i will tellt 4-b8 hours can tell us who is key. >> the one we're watching closely is west virginia. mr. trud trump won that state b2 points. if he cannot a bill across the line in a state with that much support there's a real problem. she has serious health problems in that state. among them the opioid epidemic. she wants more money in this bill for that. see if she gets it but that might not be enough. she has a huge medicaid population. she's not the only one john. i ran a lot of the statistics here. think about this. almost half of the republicans in the senate have states where 20% of the whole population is

on medicaid. that's something they're taking very seriously with this bill. >> reporter: julie, are we likely to see more changes in this bill as they get to that 50 vote mark. >> absolutely. the good news for the republican in the senate is that the senate bill would save considerably more money than the house bill. in theory they have money to play with. we would expect more money to be toward helping the opioid even denialic. they could make more changes but the problem is any change that moves toward a more moderate numbers will harden opposition to the conservative and anything that make the conservatives happy will not for the moderates. finding 50 votes, not an eyes thing. >> reporter: it will be a drama all week as we get towards friday. julie rovner and lisa dez yards, thank you very much. >> woodruff: thank you, john. as we heard, a number of patient groups and major players in the health care industry have opposed the senate bill. every major hospital group has criticized it.

they say they are especially worried about deep reductions in medicaid spending for the poor and those with disabilities, changes that include new limits like spending caps or block grants that would eventually cut the number of people on medicaid. hospitals say they will end up paying the difference by treating the uninsured. while i was in colorado for the aspen spotlight festival last week, i spoke with kenneth davis, president and c.e.o. of the mount sinai health system, which includes seven hospitals and more than 140 ambulatory centers and practices in new york. dr. ken davis, thank you very much for talking with us. you were quoted recently as commenting on the house version of the republican overhaul of the affordable care act. you said it would have a fairly devastating effect on the country. is that the way you feel about the senate version too. >> absolutely. i think if anything, there are aspects of the senate bill that can be even more problematic.

particularly the glad path per capita or block grants is going to produce a lower reimbursement for the states that's even in the house bill. >> woodruff: what about the effect on hospitals. >> there are a number of things that impact hospitals. all of them collectively, particularly for hospitals that have a reasonable number of medicaid patients are pretty difficult. there are substantial cuts. for instance, the public health and hospital corporation in new york city, they can't possibly sustain these cuts through the medicaid budget. other hospitals that have a large number of medicaid patients have a very tiny margin. that margin evaporates with this bill. >> woodruff: is that even with tweaking, you're saying there's literally no way around. >> fundamentally this bill is about decreasing medicaid and decreasing what states receive for medicaid and decreasing the house case those who have the extended benefits or eligibility that they previously didn't have. the bill isn't that much around

tweaks to obamacare. it's a little bit tweak the exchanges but the money's coming from medicaid. unless they take a completely different approach to medicaid, i don't see that tweaks are going to help. >> woodruff: there are observers of the health care system and look at this and say hospitals are a big part of the problem. this consolidating there are mergers, doctors are cutting deal with hospitals. everybody's making more money. hospitals are charging more. what could hospitals do that they aren't doing now to get some of these k0s costs down. >> let's remember not all hospitals are alike. in many cases geography is destiny in hospitals. so if you're in a system like ours in which the vast majority of our payments are either medicaid or medicare, that's fixed. and the size of our hospital system isn't going to change how much medicaid reimbursement ored medicare reimbursement we get. additionally, as some systems have increased in size, they've done so in order that they can

move away from fees for service medicine to what's called value. to do that, to be a system that can take risk and value, you have to be large enough so that patients don't escape your net work. that's part of what's driving consolidation. >> woodruff: is enough being done do you think to be mindful of costs. >> well, the margins in many hospitals are so small that if you are not fixated on costs, you are bankrupt. in new york state, we've seen 30 plus hospitals go bankrupt in recent years. >> woodruff: so the lesson is. >> the lesson is we are focused on expenses. we have to be fixated on expenses but what we really need to do and trying to do this previously and hopefully we can continue to do this is ask how can we deliver healthcare in a more cost efficient way. the system is failing us. the macro economics of healthcare are such that the government can't afford it, the states can't afford it, the employers can't afford it and the employees can't afford it. what we've got to ask is what's

wrong with the system and how do we change it so is more efficient for everybody. >> woodruff: you brought up medicaid, saying how much of this legislation is around medicaid. there are many who say that the medicaid expansion that was part of the affordable care act originally, which i know you were strongly for, the critics say this was simply throwing money at an inefficient program, poor quality care, people on medicaid don't get the same level of care that others do. and they point to studies showing that even with the expansion of medicaid, that that care is not getting much better. how do you respond. >> well, those studies or study doesn't take a very long perspective. you can't see the difference in things like mortality for quite some time. if you're lower people's hemoglobin or their blood pressure you see life span in those patients.

what we did find, what was reported was an improvement in mental health. it seems like people have forgotten that. the largest provider of payment for addiction services is medicaid. 20% of all medicaid recipients at the very least have mental health problems. to take that out of the equation is very very disruptive. and to think that we're not having a positive influence, the only thing we really directly affect that we can measure short term is improvement in meant mel health. it's demeaning to us psychiatrists. >> woodruff: the mega about our whole healthcare system. what conservatives are arguing among other things is that when you have healthcare, rising costs of healthcare driving at least a 6th of the economy, something's really out of whack. the whole system is too expensive, too out of control. government participating in it is helping to drive up those

k0sz. do do they have a point. >> not really. we lose money on every medicaid patient who walks in my door. in patient or outpatient. that's the could the of health care. if they were truly interested in the question of why is our system sex pensive, this would be a bill about how we move away from fee for service medicine which physicians and hospitals get paid for everything they do and moving more to a value and risk which measures, providers are tal all align such that evee wants you to stay well expowt of the hospitals. we have incentives for readmission, we have incentives for shorter 125eu and bring care to a less expensive place. but those issues aren't being addressed in this bill. >> woodruff: your point is conservatives may make that argument but they're not promoting. >> if they are truly interested in changing the cost structure, making it more efficient and

less expensive, they've got to deal with reforms that actually affect those metrics. and these don't. >> woodruff: dr. ken davis, we thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the "newshour": the first part of my interview with warren buffett on the nation's shifting economy, and it's politics monday-- tamara keith and stu rosenberg look ahead to a busy week on the hill. but first, a unique look at the victims of war in syria. in 2015, canada began that country's largest refugee resettlement program since the vietnam war. over the last year and a half, 45,000 syrian refugees have made canada their home, more than double those admitted in the u.s. now, a group of comic book

artists are documenting refugee stories through their art. special correspondent stefan labbé and producer lauren kaljur have the story. >> reporter: in 2011, mohammed alsaleh joined the wave of anti- government protesters sweeping across syria. >> it was the first time in my life where i was hearing my voice say the word freedom in public. it was the first time in syrian history where a picture of our dictator is being torn in public and i was taking that shot. that was one of the most amazing days of my life. >> reporter: that footage would prove his undoing, as the government began to crack down on protesters. >> now they are attacking us.

>> reporter: now a refugee in canada, mohammed finally has the chance to tell his story, with the help of a comic book collective. >> cloudscape finds people who have come to canada as refugees and matches them with comic book artists. >> reporter: jonathan dalton is an established comic artist. he usually draws stories about fantasy and historical fiction. >> i was studying medicine at homs university during the arab spring. the first time i was arrested was for filming pro-democracy protests. so, protesters would have a flag with three stars. >> okay, i wasn't paying close enough attention. >> reporter: the comic book artists work closely with refugees to create a massive one-page comic.

>> don't you think this engages the audience more? >> this is your story so i want you to have as much control over how it's told as possible. >> reporter: when it's finished, mohammed's story will be displayed in bus shelters around vancouver. >> by drawing people as cartoons i think you can engage the reader to see themselves in the story. >> reporter: but it's about more than putting yourself in a refugee's shoes. for mohammed, comics have the power to animate a humanitarian crisis many have grown numb to. >> when you try your best to share a story about the worst crisis after world war two, sometimes you feel that language is not actually capable of doing that. >> i tried to stay out of trouble, but...

>> reporter: assad's security forces stormed mohammad's classroom as he was writing an exam. he was charged with terrorism for documenting the uprising. all over the news, all over the world. >> moaned was blindfolded and showstled off to much >> reporter: mohammed was blindfolded and shuttled off to one of the regimes many detention centers. over the next 150 days, the guards would deprive him of food and sleep, chain him from the ceiling and beat him inside of a tire. and when he wasn't being tortured he was crammed into small rooms with dozens of other prisoners. >> reporter: mohammed was released from prison after his brother bribed a judge. >> when i got my freedom back, all i wanted to do was see my family. i also wanted to say goodbye, i

needed to get as far away as i could. >> reporter: he jumped into a taxi and fled to lebanon. not because of that, that i decided to leave syria. it was because of that i decided that i'm not going to risk being detained and tortured again. >again. >> reporter: he would soon be chosen as one of the first 200 syrian refugees to be granted asylum in canada. >> when i arrived in vancouver i had only the clothes on my back. >> reporter: he's built a life for himself here, now he helps other refugees newly arrived in the city.

>> for maybe plans. >> helps him open a bank account and teaches them how to withdraw money from an atm. >> withdraw. >> but with the cartoon project he wants to reach beyond the refugee community. >> i think it's very important to, you know, share my story. other immigrants share their story as well. in order to demonstrate we have this beautiful place because we welcome others because we are the positive example in a... in a very bad world. >> with his family scattered across turkey and germany anti-immigrant movements on the size. mohamed is focused on one thing. reuniting his family here in canada. for pbs newshour in vancouver.

>> woodruff: next, to part one of my interview with warren buffett. he's one of the shrewdest and most successful investors in the world, earning the nickname "the oracle of omaha." i traveled to nebraska last week for this wide-ranging conversation. and a note: buffett is c.e.o. of berskhire hathaway, which owns b.n.s.f. railway-- one of the funders of the "newshour." he's number two on "forbes" list of the world's wealth yes people worth more than $75 billion. warren buffett is an investing rock star to his berkshire hathaway shareholders who gather in omaha every year. one share is trading today at $251,000. two years ago the legendary firm celebrated its record of investment over a half century, a portfolio that includes craft

hines, gieco, wells fargo, coca-cola and among others, the nebraska furniture part. it's the largest furniture store in north america. buffet bought it in 1983 from rows blumkin, a russian immigrant who built it from nothing. >> there's nothing like it. the 58th market in the united states it's the largest home furnishing store in the country until we built two more. >> woodruff: why was she so successful. what was the secret. >> she would say she had a thing in her office but it says she had two things. sell cheap and tell the truth. >> woodruff: we talked on the showroom floor surrounded by sofas, lamps and coffee tables. the state of the economy was our first topic. the stock market's booming, unemployment rate is what is as low as it's been in 15, 16 years. we're still not seeing the growth that people would like to

see. what's going on? >> the economy is doing well but all americans aren't doing well. but we've got 57 or $58,000 of gdp per person. that is a lot of stuff. >> woodruff: and yet the growth, the rate of growth is what, 2%. president trump is saying we're going to get it higher than that. is that doable? >> well, it may be occasionally it happens but no, i don't think probably on average we'll have that kind of growth. but 2% does wurntdz fo wonders . if you take 2%, we have population growth with immigration, but 2% in one generation will add $19,000 of gdp per person. family of four, 76,000 in one generation. so your children and children's children and all that, they'll live far far far better than we live with 2% growth. >> woodruff: let me then ask you a little bit about the been employment picture. because as you edits low on

employment. people have jobs at the same time. we're told the labor participation rate is lower than what the experts like it to be. more people are leaving jobs than joining. have we seen some kind of shift. >> we always see shifts in employment. when you think about it, when you go back to 1800, it took 80% of the labor force to produce enough food for the country. now it takes less than 3%. well the truth is that market systems move people around. >> woodruff: you also see some experts saying that not enough, there aren't enough workers out there who know, who have the skills to do all the jobs that are needed. >> there's always a mismatch. i mean you know, as the economy evolves, the reallocates resources. now the real problem in my view is, this has been the prosperity has been unbelievable for the extremely rich people. if you go to 182 when it was put

on the first 400 list those people had 94 bill million now they have 2.4 trillion. 25 per one. this has been a prosperity that's been disproportionately rewarding to the people on top. >> woodruff: are we stuck forever with some measure ofen equality. >> we generally have translated greater output in the few hours of work per week over the last century. and that's a good trend of the future. but we do have to have a system that as output of goods and services keeps increasing per capita, it takes care of the people who are willing to work and really are not getting by very well with a family on 40 hour a week. >> woodruff: you come across as optimistic about the future of this country. you wrote to your shareholders last year it's a mistake to bet against the united states for the last 240 years. happens the u.s. standing though

in the world, has it been changed, has it been harmed in any way, given what's been going on the last six or eight months. >> we do not have dwight the percentage of th -- quite the pp then we had. the question is whether we can be the moral leader as well as the economic leader. >> woodruff: what do you think. >> i think that's a podium we should have. we will be the economic leader and we should be the moral leader. we should stand for more than the fact wealth in this country. >> woodruff: do you think we are right now. >> sometimes we aren't and sometimes we aren't. i did not think what happened on the paris agreement was a good idea. we have to live with the rest of the world and it's a mistake in my view. trade is generally developed in this country. we actually export 12 or 13% of our gdp, there was only 5% in 1970. it benefits the world. it doesn't benefit the steel

worker in ohio and that's the problem that has to be addressed. when you have something that's good for society but terribly harmful for given individuals we've got to make sure those individuals are taken care of. >> woodruff: let me ask you a couple questions about markets investing. nobody knows markets better than you do. i think you said earlier this year that you weren't worried that the market was in a bubble because interest rates were staying low. as you know, the federal reserve is starting to raise. do you still see the market -- >> anything can happen to markets. i bought my first stock in 1942. i was 11 years old. and so 75 years have gone by and i've never known what the market's going to do the next day. and that's not my game. my game is to decide whether i'm in the right economy which america's definitely been ever since that time. the dow has gone from 120,000 during that time. and no matter what the headlines say, terrible things are happening, we were losing the

war with stocks. so, america's going to do 2350eu7b ovefineover time. america businesses is going to do fine over time. occasionally we go off the track with bubbles and a lot of human error and that sort of thing. but i don't try and guess when to get in and out of the market. i've owned stocks kibilitily since 19 -- consistently since 1942. i was buying stocks the day before the election, i'm buying the same stocks after the election. if hillary were elected it would have been the same thing. >> woodruff: are stocks responsible for what's going on in the market. >> stocks have been going up since march 200 78 that's when it hit the bottom very early in march. morals ever sincmoralsmore or l- >> woodruff: your investment decisions over time have been remarkably right much of the time, most of the time?

today as people look at you and look at the decisions that you've made, what mainly should people take a look at. >> they should be willing to bet on america. they should not listen to a lot of jabbering about what the market's going to do tomorrow or next week or next month because nobody knows. they should keep buying and buying a little bit of america as they go along and 30 or 40 years from now they'll have a lot of money. >> woodruff: it came up your recent shareholder's meeting that wells fargo had problems, they engaged in some -- >> plenty of problems. >> woodruff: they engaged in some fake accounts and millions of fake accounts, leadership with the company which were placed. the critics are saying yes, you call them out but berkshire hathaway still owns a big chunk. >> yes used wood the. >> woodruff: is there a double standard. >> it's a terrible mistake. they incentivized bad behavior.

it works. but you increment vised bad behavior. the big problem is you can design an incentive system that is incentivizing the wrong things. you have to end it fast and decisive that's where they made a big mistake. >> woodruff: is there a clear mind that behavior becomes so unacceptable you don't want to have anything to do with that company. >> it's a very interesting question. i would not want to manufacture cigarettes. but if i owned, we do own costco. do they sell them? yes. so i don't have a problem owning stock in that. i wouldn't want to do it myself. i basically think if anything is anti-social, society should do something about it. that's a separate question. i don't the there's any company i've seen that's a hundred% pure. in terms of what i'll call them out for, i'll call individuals out but generally not a private corporation.

>> woodruff: something that affects all biltses is th busine cost of healthcare in this country and you've been vocal about that. you argue right now, in fact, that the cost of paying for healthcare can affect a company even more than taxes. >> well it does. i mean in terms of our competitiveness in the world. healthcare in 1960 was 5% of gdp. it's only a hundred cents to the dollar. it's gone from 5% to 17%. and it keeps going up. corporate taxes have gone down from 4% to to 2%. so corporate taxes are way less of a factor in american competitiveness in overall business than medical costs. >> woodruff: as we sit here today in omaha, the republicans in congress are madly trying to figure out what to do to replace obamacare, the healthcare act. do you have a firm idea in your mind what ought to be done about

obamacare? everybody acknowledges there's been some problems. >> i think that's way outside of my circle of competence. but i would say this. you can't have that five go to 17 and move on to 20 and 22 or 24% because there are only a hundred cents on the dollar. healthcare is gobbling up well over $3 trillion a year. it's just about the same as federal, the federal budget is getting up there. >> woodruff: are we now at the point where the country does need to think about some sort of single payer system in some more or another. >> with my limited knowledge, i think that probably is the best system. because it is a system, we are such a rich country, in a sense we can afford to do it. in almost every field of american business, it pays to bring down costs. there's an awful lot of people involved in the medical, the whole just the way the ecosystem worked, there was no incentive

to bring down costs. >> woodruff: it sounds like what you're saying with a single payer system it's easier to figure out a way. >> more effective, i think. >> woodruff: tune in tomorrow night for the second part of my conversation with warren buffett. we'll look more at his own taxes and his views on tax reform and philanthropy. online, you can view buffett's very first tax return, filed at age 14 for money earned on two paper routes in his northwest washington, d.c. neighborhood. that's at pbs.org/newshour. >> woodruff: we turn back now to the supreme court's decision to take up the trump administration's travel ban and the ongoing fight over the healthcare replacement bill. for all that, it's time for

politics monday with tamara keith of npr and stu rothenberg, senior editor at "inside elections." welcome to both of you. so tam, i'm going to start with you on the supreme court ruling on the travel ban. it is a limited victory for the president. they did allow a reinstatement of a part of it. how much of a victory is it? >> well, it's a victory. and the president hasn't had a lot of victories on this travel ban. it's been blocked in various courts all the way up to the supreme court. he was 0-2 in the appeals courts before getting to the supreme court. now at least he will be heard in the supreme court. now it is not the 9-0 victory that the president declared. there's not a decision yet, there's only a decision to hear the case. >> woodruff: how do you see it, stu. >> yes. everything is a win or loss so it's a win for the president. i don't see it have dramatic political implications.

there's a line drawn for the ban against the ban. the final decision has been kicked down the road, the can has been kicked down the road a bit. it's a win for the president but compared to healthcare, foreign policy, jobs the economy, i just don't see there's a decisive issue. >> woodruff: speaking of healthcare, we know the debate in the senate goes on. we heard lisa desjardins talking about john yang earlier talking about where the state of play is. today can the congress budget office weigh in and saying almost as many 22 million more americans would be hurt by this plan, would lose coverage, which is almost as many as the house plan. now you've just heard there's some reaction from the whitehouse. >> the whitehouse is reacting much the way it reacted the last time the congressional budget office came out with one of these blockbuster reports saying millions of people would lose coverage. they're saying the cvo hasn't always been accurate. so everyone just look in the other direction please ignore

that. the other point that the statement makes is that the president said he would repeal and replace the affordable care act, and this bill doesn't and therefore that's what they want. now there are some in the senate that actually say the bill doesn't repeal obamacare, it's more of a modification of the prepreexisting structure, and that is one of the objections. there are many out there. >> woodruff: stu, what are the pressures on these republicans as they decide what to do about this. >> i think they're in a very difficult position, a rock and a hard place. on one hand, they want to accomplish something. they have the mandate from conservatives, republicans, trump barracks to dtrump backer. they're concerned about opinion back home and concerned about the coverage. i saw the release from mitch mcconnel right before i came on. the senate will soon take action on the bill that the congress number budget office just confirmed will rules the growth of premiums under obamacare,

reduce taxes on the middle class and rules the deficit. premiums, taxes, deficit. what mcconnel didn't talk about was healthcare, quality of coverage. >> or out of pocket, penses which the cvo report says could be massive. >> and voters care about these things. they care a lot about these things. >> woodruff: stu, again you follow these, the political pressures on these members of the senate as they think about the ones who are you for re-election. >> we had some numbers and it's really stunning. what's the one group, two groups that are supposed to benefit mostly with a healthcare bill. younger voters and healthier people, right, because they've been subsidizing older people and people who aren't as healthy. what groups is most opposed to the american healthcare act and most critical of documented trouble, 18-34 years old ons. the kind of voters who should like this. it's think it's a real problem with republican. >> woodruff: we'll see what happens. there's so much to ask about.

tam, the president has been tweeting a lot over the weekend continuing to today about the reports that the obama administration had information about russian hacking, interference in last year's presidential election and didn't do a lot about it until after the election. president's going after former problemprobe, sayingpresident o. saying he's the one to blame. what's his position. >> his position hacking and metaling in the election is wildly confusing. frefly he had said it was a hoax invented by the democrats just to explain their loss in the election. now i guess he's okay with the homosexual as long as it's former president obama's fault. he does have a remarkable ability to make everything president obama's not one way or another. >> woodruff: stu, the problem, this has been the monkey on the president's back for months and months and months. he doesn't like to talk about it

but it seems as if this particular report that came out a couple days ago in "the washington post," he seized on that. >> you're right, he's looking for some explanation to prove he was right and he was obama was wrong it's all obama's fault. what donald trump said is correct that obama did assumed hillary clinton would win the election request he could not take on this issue publicly. but can you imagine what donald trump would have said a few weeks before election if president obama got on teleadministratri -->> he's alrs risked and that may have influenced how the obama administration may have reacted. >> woodruff: privately what's what the own folks are saying. what we overlook in all the news last week the announcement by the supreme court they're going to take up a redistricting case that affects the census, going to have a big effect on how our

politics potentially. >> this is huge or as some people say yuge because this goes to the very heart of how districts are drawn, who draws the districts and that goes to the very heart of who gets elected and which party benefits with how the districts are drawn. so this is a way to absolutely keep an eye on, the court has been very reticent to get involved on the issue is this a political question. if by taking the case i guess they're going to address it at least. >> woodruff: the back drop is the way the redistricting gerrymandering has been happening, quickly, has benefited republicans and this is a chance to look at that. >> redistricting has influencing things like this very healthcare debate because members of congress are more worried, particularly republican members are more worried about primary from the right than a general election. >> woodruff: that one's in the null. so is the big travel ban argument. we're going to have a lot to look forward. in the meantime we've got so

much to cover right now. stu rothenberg, tamara keith, politics monday. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: on the newshour online right now: a new study finds that when the news cycle is packed to the brim, information overload can cause people to struggle to discriminate between fact-based stories and fake news on social media. learn more about that research on our web site: pbs.org/newshour. >> kicks off the season about two films about senio syrian res telling the story of a young girl who moved to the united states from aleppo five years ago and how she navigates her native and adoptive cultures as a southern california teenager. and 4.1 miles chronicle the day

in the life of a greek coast guard captain who makes multiple trips to save thousands of migrants from drowning. both pov flimsz air later tonight on most pbs stations. that' and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by bnsf railway. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful

world. more information at macfound.org >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> you're w

>> glor: welcome to the program. i'm jeff glor of cbs news filling in for charlie. we look at the senate's proposed healthcare bill. we talk to kelsey snell of "the washington post" and ezra klein of vox. >> what's interesting about this bill sit retains most to have the architecture of the affordable care act, it just takes away money for it to achieve its goals. liberals don't like the way it doesn't get what it needs to get done. conservatives like it because the platform is still around, and the democrats could come back and refill it with money. in theory there is a lot of policy disagreement. but if republicans want to pass something, well, this is something. >> glor: we continue with uber