>> it's not over. republicans take another shot at dismantling the affordable care act. but the clock is ticking. i'm robert costa. we look at the sudden push on capitol hill. plus, escalating tensions between the u.s. and north korea. tonight, on "washington week." >> here's the test for republicans. did we work as hard to repeal obamacare as they did to pass it? >> senate republicans revive efforts to overhaul the affordable care act. but as the clock ticks down, can they get 50 republican votes? >> there are many concerns that i have about the graham-cassidy proposal. >> i promised repeal. i didn't promise i would sort of keep most of it. >> democrats remain united in opposition. >> are we not going to rest until this horrible deal, worse than the last one, is dead? >> plus, president trump takes

the world stage. >> rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. >> and he follows up his debut at the united nations with new sanctions on north korea. >> the order enhances the treasury department's authorities to target any individual or entity that conducts significant trade in goods, services or technology with north korea. >> will the tough talk spark conflict? and what is the trump doctrine? we'll get answers from philip rucker of the washington post, shawna thomas of vice news, julie pace of the associated press, and peter baker of the new york times. >> celebrating 50 years, this is "washington week." funding is provided by... >> we've all been affected by cancer in some way, somehow.

dana-farber cancer institute is pursuing breakthroughs every day to help end cancer. like identifying genetic mutations for targeted therapies and teaching your immune system to attack cancer cells. by constantly using information in completely new ways. we're cracking the cancer code. learn more at discovercarebelieve.org. >> their leadership is instinctive. they understand the challenges of today. and research the technologies of tomorrow. some call them veterans. we call them part of our team. >> additional funding is provided by newman's own

foundation. donating all profits from newman's own products to charity and nourishing the common good. the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation. the yuen foundation. committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you! once again, live from washington, moderator robert costa. >> good evening. republicans right now are scrambling to get the 50 votes they need in the senate to up-end the affordable care act. senator lindsey graham of south carolina and bill cassidy of louisiana drafted the latest g.o.p. legislation. the bill would eliminate insurance subsidies and employer mandates. it would significantly change the expansion of medicaid,

converting those health care funds into block grants that states would receive as a lump sum. coverage for preexisting conditions would not be federally protected. that's because each state would opt out of that insurance rule. a bipartisan group of 10 governors are opposed to the measure. and even reliably republican senator chuck grassley of iowa has admitted the bill has flaws. but he said that republicans campaigned on the issue and feel pressure from their base to act. shawna, when you look at this piece of legislation, it says the g.o.p. will let the states decide how to use federal money. but why is that so complicated? and what's at the heart of this debate? >> well, it's so complicated, because even though they're saying we're gonna create a formula and give all the states this money, in the end, for a lot of states, that means a lot less money is going to them. and overall, the cuts are fairly large. so because we don't have a

congressional budget, one has said it's a $215 billion cut in health care funding between 2020 and 2026. in 2027, they say it goes up to $489 billion. at the heart of it, it is a program to make the size of government smaller, which is a very conservative thing. but when you start looking at, individual state? the states start to say things like, wait a second, if you're going to give me a billion less over 10 years, how am i going to fund these health care programs i already have? the states will have to grapple with what makes the best health care for them, if this thing goes through. >> governors are big stakeholders here, phil. they seem to not want the disruption for their insurance markets or the way they spend health care money. >> that's right. a number of states expanded medicaid programs in their states under the affordable care act and those are the states in particular that would likely see less money coming in for their programs, which could result in big cuts to medicaid. it's one of the reasons you see republicans like ohio governor

john kasich so strongly opposed to this bill, because it would disrupt a system that they've spent really years trying to build in their states, after the affordable care act. health care is complicated. these governors have had to navigate a lot of different rules to create a system that the industry can get used to. and this is just more disruption potentially. >> and we don't have a congressional budget office score yet. we don't know how much this republican bill would cost. but we had big news today, not only because we don't have a cbo score and the process has been rushed, but senator john mccain said he is once again opposed to the republican bill. major news for this bill's fate. >> it essentially puts this bill on death's door. i mean, you can really only afford to lose three of these -- or two of these republican lawmakers. three would be a bridge too far. rand paul is a no. mccain says he's a no. all the attention is going to be focused on collins from maine

and murkowski. these are two senators that can't be swayed in the ways that you would usually try to get a senator to change course. murkowski had to run in a -- she had to do a write-in to get in her seat and mcconnell didn't back her in that race. she owes these leadership members nothing. and collins is the traditional moderate republican. this is the role that she plays. it's really hard to see, especially with the cover from john mccain, that either of these women will change course now. >> and with senator collins, you have the issue that everyone kind of thinks she's going to run for governor of maine. and it's hard, if you also have to go to your citizens and say, well, i voted for something that took a billion dollars away from your state, when it comes to something like health care, which is so personal to people. >> that's the deviousness of the obama plan. they understood from the beginning, if you get these states hooked on money for

health care programs, they're going to want to keep it. once government programs are started, it's awfully hard to undue them. in effect, they created a constituency for a law that might in fact be controversial but has a lot of people who are currently stakeholders in it. >> we saw that president obama spoke out this week about the health care legislation and democrats seem to be mounting their own effort. >> nothing is closer to his heart, i think, as a legacy item, than this health care bill. from his point of view, it was one of the major accomplishments that he did, that presidents have sought to do for decades. the problem is, for democrats, you know, let's say this goes down as people now think it might. what do they do next? is there a way to fix what everybody agrees are flaws in the law, which would require a bipartisan effort? what's interesting as a test for president trump and his new fondness and chuck and fancy, is he gonna do that? >> the way this health care debate is evolving is that you have republicans pushing block

grants in states. and democrats are pushing, at some level, for single payer health care, led by senator sanders, independent but aligned with the democrats from vermont. is this the way the health care debate is moving in the united states? >> it's two parties moving in opposite directions. i think that the single payer debate among the democrats is a fascinating aspect of this story, led by bernie sanders, who is continuing to play a disrupter for democrats, pushing a lot of people to the left. in principle, a lot of democrats do support the idea of a single payer. but sanders is trying to push them in that direction. i do this this bipartisan discussion that was going on before graham-cassidy got pushed to the forefront is something to keep an eye on, because as peter said, you won't find any senator, any lawmakers of any -- any lawmaker of any party that would say that obamacare as it exists now is working. it has to be fixed. >> people don't want to uproot

it. the disruption factor is keeping a lot of people opposed to this legislation. >> and a lot of that is coming from these governors, the ones actually on the ground having to implement this. >> and also uprooting it, it goes back to, who do you tell in your state, especially if you're in a state that expanded medicaid like ohio, okay, we are going to change these rules so that all of a sudden you are not allowed to have medicaid anymore. who are you going to tell that to, practically, especially if you're a governor or somebody on the local level? >> what about preexisting conditions? >> it's interesting, because the bill can't get rid of the idea that preexisting conditions need to be covered by insurance companies, that an insurance company cannot deny you if you have a preexisting condition. what they have done is said, hey, states, we're giving you a lot of latitude. if you write a program and you assure us that people will have adequate and affordable coverage, even if they have preexisting conditions, they will have adequate and

affordable coverage, then you can create some room for yourself basically. no one knows really what that is going to mean from a state by state basis. because there is that uncertainty, it leads to the fight we've seen on late-night t.v. lately. >> that culture effect matters. >> it does. and a big obstacle is the popularity of their effort. there's a new poll out that finds that 56% of americans think obamacare is better and only 33% think the senate g.o.p. bill is better. if you look at the republicans, only republicans in that poll, a full quarter of them, do not like this senate bill. so the senators are having a really hard time galvanizing support for this measure out in the country, even though they campaigned on repealing obamacare, even though repealing it has been a galvanizing force in their base. the specifics of this bill are not popular. >> it becomes the best thing for obamacare. now people are faced with the choice of maybe losing it. >> one of the downfalse of not

going -- down falls of not going through what mccain was talking about is that there really hasn't been a chance for republicans to even sell the public on this. most americans probably don't know the details. what they are hearing is coming from news reports, jimmy kimmel. but when you do the process in this way, try to rush legislation through, you lose that able to actually bolster the popularity of what you're trying to do. >> i wonder, does the trump voter actually want this legislation? we always talk about the conservative base prompting republicans in congress to move quickly. but are we sure that the trump voter, who is sometimes a little bit more independent, wants this bill? >> i think once they saw the effect of it, they might not want it. a lot of people want it in theory. they think obamacare was terrible. it was either government run amok or their premiums were going up or what have you. the businesses were required to provide this that they couldn't afford. if they saw the alternative as being better, that's the real

test. one of the things we've learned in these last 10 years, there is no model system that everybody is going to love. in fact, each one is going to drive somebody crazy. and it will become unpopular for one reason or another. >> so if this bill falls apart, and the graham-cassidy is put on the shelf, shawna, we saw in senator mccain's statement, he was talking about bipartisan efforts maybe being on the horizon. you see lamar alexander, senator patty murray of washington working on their own proposal. could that actually happen? >> none of these people really totally like obamacare in its current form. there is republican and democratic agreement that if we don't figure out a way to shore up the insurance markets, if we don't figure out a way to stabilize them, if we don't give the insurance companies some kind of idea that this is -- the payments to them from the federal government are going to continue, they will keep pulling out. so while that could be a way to

sort of destroy obamacare, which is something republicans might want, if that makes it harder for people to get health insurance, i think you're going to see people try to come together around this, which is what alexander and murray were doing. >> alabama participating in a primary runoff, senator rand paul of kentucky firmly opposed, does the white house feel any pressure to move on health care? >> they'd like to move. based on opportunity this week, i think there was momentum building behind this bill. it's the reason you saw vice president pence leave the united nations mid-day tuesday to try to twist some arms in the senate. look, the president has not been at the forefront of this graham-cassidy effort, but he's trying to push it along. i think mccain dashed it probably. >> it's not just the president who has some political capital on the line. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, he's pushing in this primary as well. but he also is trying to show the white house, the republican voter, julie, that he can get

somethin done. >> absolutely. again, on this promise that has been so central for republicans for seven years now, and there is still this open question, even with mccain taking this position today, if mcconnell will put a bill on the floor. >> will he? >> i don't know the answer to that. i think that's a really fascinating question. you could argue that he might want to put it on the floor and let it fail, have two failed votes and go turn to his members and say we have to move on. it's time to put this behind us. whether that works or not, with their voters, i think is also an open question. is it worth the embarrassment. >> in the middle of the night. >> once again, you've got a white house that thought it was beginning to try to get a little bit of traction, right? things started to settle down a little bit, that the president had done pretty well, managing the hurricanes, he had done pretty well at the u.n. obviously not everybody agreed with that. but they had a plan. and the plan was about tax reform. now suddenly you've got this overshadowing, another loss if it goes down. and by the way, immigration looming in the background, ready

to come up at any moment. so instead of being able to focus what they thought would be their one priority, they keep getting pulled in different directions. >> i'm not so sure, if they do move on from health care to takx reform, that's going to be any easier. >> it's tough. the president wants to try to put a little more meat on the bone, reveal something more of a plan. right now we basically have principles and a list of bullet points. but tax reform is going to be tough. they're trying to get democratic support. that's going to be hard. there are a lot of different constituency groups, millions, tens of millions of dollars at stake here for industries that are lobbying hard. >> harder than health care. >> it is much harder than health care. i think, if you talk to republicans who are working on 2018 races, the prospect of going into the midterms without health care, without taxes, they know that map looks really good, but that just is ugly for them. they're pretty honest about that behind the scenes. >> so is all this -- with all

this on capitol hill, we have to turn to the other big issue of the week. the president was at the united nations. tensions between the united states and north korea continue to rise. after president trump announced new economic sanctions designed to choke off that country's trade with the outside world, the move comes days after president trump threatened north korea in his first address to the u.n., where he mocked north korea's kim jong-un. he called him "rocket man." >> the united states has great strength and patience. but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy north korea. >> kim jong-un fired back in a personal statement, very personal, calling mr. trump mentally deranged. north korean officials are warning that they may test a hydrogen bomb in the pacific ocean. the president responded via twitter, writing kim jong-un of north korea, who is obviously a madman, who doesn't mind starving or killing his people,

will be tested like never before. the president also took aim at iran, which he called a corrupt dictatorship and called the nuclear deal an embarrassment. the president seems to be trying to provoke these nuclear nations. that could have global consequences. peter, you were in new york, watching this all unfold. when you were watching the president's speech, what was the mood in that room? >> it's a tough audience for any president. everybody has got different languages, different cultures. so i think other presidents discovered, you can't make jokes, interact with the audiences, which is where president trump is at his most comfortable, where he probably is tonight in alabama. george bush once said it's like speaking to a wax museum. nobody moves. it was stony silence for the most part. a little smallering of applause here. when he used the term "rocket man," it was kind of a buzz. when he said the world was going to hell, kind of a buzz going through the room.

but they don't know what to make of the guy. this is not the typical american presidents. american presidents don't get up there and say we're going to destroy another country, even if it's provoked. they're used to a diplomatic, polished kind of presentation. and that's not the way president trump is. >> beyond the presentation, what was the message? was it america first? was it isolationist? >> it's not isolationist. he used the word sovereignty. he used it 21 times in the speech. by that, it's a favorite term on the right. that hates the u.n. why should we be part of this global body? we are our own sovereign nation. the u.n. should butt out and not tell us what to do. on the one hand, he's defending american sovereignty while telling other countries what to do. he's attacking venezuela, not just north korea which you could argue is a threat to other countries, but countries that are internally violating human rights. they would say, sovereignty

applies to them too. butt out, united states. >> and also pushing china to act tougher on north korea, even though they don't always feel like it's in their own sovereign interest. >> and we've seen developments. chinese banks are now saying they're going to screw the lid a little tighter when it comes to giving money to north korea and trade with north korea. is that progress? is north korea actually becoming more isolated? >> it's sometimes hard to know with the chinese banks, because they're a bit insular. i don't think we know the full extent of what china is doing. rhetorically, the white house jumped on this. you had the president talking about this at the u.n. china continues to be the key for the administration in terms of getting progress on north korea. everything else that we've seen so far has really had no practical effect. the momentum is all in one direction, with north korea continuing to move forward with testing, continuing to take provocative actions. they show no sign of being cowed by trump's rhetoric.

they actually like to return the fire. china remains a puzzle for this administration. they can't quite figure out how to get them to move as quickly as they want them to. that's because china doesn't move quickly and there's this fundamental sort of lack of understanding, i think, sometimes in this administration about the way that china approaches these issues and the speed at which they're willing to move. >> phil, when you think about the very personal way these two leaders are going at each other, it's typical president trump. you've covered him for a long time. but it has real implications for foreign policy. >> it does. there are some here in the united states, when they see trump fire shots on twitter, they just say, don't listen to what he's saying, just focus on the actions. but in the case, the words are the actions. you can't trust that north korea is not going to pay attention when trump says "rocket man" and threatens to destroy their civilization really. it's very dangerous. it's something that has japan and south korea, they're very nervous. the president met with their leaders, the leaders of japan and south korea this week, in

new york. and i think they're trying together to try to bring more pressure on china to pressure north korea. but there's no easy option. you talk to folks in the white house. and they're nervous about this, very jittery about north korea. they have not identified any sort of magic bullet. >> and shawna, iran is watching closely. they strike a nuclear deal with the united states. kim jong-un is watching. does he want to cut a deal with the united states? the president is not just making nuclear tough talk with north korea but with iran. >> i think one of the issues is that if kim jong-un is watching the way president trump talks about iran, he is saying to himself, well, i saw you make a deal with a bunch of other countries, and international bodies are saying they -- iran is adhering to the nuclear part of the deal and america seems to want to still try to figure out a way to get ou out of that dea. why should i make a deal with you, if you're going to go onto the world stage if i'm cooperating and still, you know, say the worst about me? >> there's no good reason to

make the deal tork to a certain extent. >> on that point, peter, the president says he's made a decision on the iran deal but won't reveal it. this is a totally different figure on the world stage. but an iran and north korea, what's next? >> well, that's the real question, right? with iran, you can see a possible path forward, if they are good at diplomacy. now, that's a big if. the president has until october 15, under american law, to certify whether in fact iran is complying with the deal. and the other part of the phrase -- it's interesting -- that it's in america's national interest. he may not be able to make the argument that they're violating the deal but he may declare it's not in our national interest. that doesn't get him out of the deal. but repass these sanctions if you want, that would get us out of the deal. the french said this week they would be open to negotiations, not to reopen the actual deal but to have a supplement in which they deal with some of these other issues. the iranians said, no, we're

done, sorry, this is a closed issue. >> and you could see president trump tinkering a little bit with this addendum and claiming he renegotiated the deal, saying i totally redid the deal and made it beautiful and wonderful, like he had campaigned on. >> and there are people and organizations around the united nations. there's always other groups and one of them was a group talking about iran, which included bill richardson, john bolten, a couple of other people, who it seemed were trying to help president trump make this conversation about the spirit of the deal, which is how president trump talks about it, which is the american interest part, that if they can figure out a way to create room and show people that iran is not part of the spirit of the deal, then maybe he could do something. >> we could talk all night. [laughter] >> we'll leave it there, unfortunately. thanks, everybody, for being here. our conversation will continue on the "washington week" extra, where we'll tell you why president trump is risking his own political capital in a

senate race in alabama. you can find it later tonight at pbs.org/newshour. i'm robert costa. enjoy your weekend! ♪[music] >> funding for "washington week" is provided by... ♪[music] >> their leadership is instinctive. they understand the challenges of today and research the technologies of tomorrow. some call them veterans. we call them part of our team.

>> additional funding is provided by dana-farber cancer institute. more at discovercarebelieve.org. newman's own foundation. donating all profits from newman's own products to charity and nourishing the common good. the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation. the yuen foundation. committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you! >> yo ♪

-our story begins more than 60 years ago inside an abandoned chicken coop, where our founder discovered a retired teacher living -- no home, no healthcare. so she said "no" to this injustice and "yes" to transforming lives. it's this drive, this compassion that inspired aarp. today, we empower people to choose how they live as they age. we provide health and financial resources. we strengthen communities everywhere. we are aarp. real possibilities. o0 c1 provided by the corporationt for public broadcasting and by rosalind p. walter, the philip and janice levin foundation, judith and burton resnick, ellen and james s. marcus, vital projects fund, the lillian goldman programming endowment,