third nuclear test, and there are many things that kim jong-un who's a new leader in north korea. everyone else is newer than he is, nonetheless, he could have issued through rodman or even by letter a very -- a more sophisticated note on how he would like to stand down on the nuclear front, stand down on some of the posturing on south korea. there are many things he could have done to make this serious. he's a pop culture guy, he's a young man. we have to ask ourselves, is he trying to do what he knows. as inadequate and silly as it sounds, maybe there's something deeper there. i don't think there is, but barack obama needs to respond to serious initiatives and not just the pop culture ones. and the leader of north korea needs to learn that. >> here's what i don't get about

these diplomatic niceties. why isn't this the best time to call, after north korea has done something that we really really don't want and we really want them to stop doing it. the soviet missiles were in cuba, and so president kennedy was communicating as directly with nikita khrushchev as he could. he didn't say, i'm not going to talk to him now, now that he's done something that bothers me. >> the soviet union and the united states were two great powers vying for global control. north korea is a small state that exists through extortion, by misbehaving and trying to extract resources from other nations in the world by threatening the rest of the nation and wanting to be nice to get resources. you can't reward that behavior too quickly. and i think barack obama's probably calling it right here by keeping some distance. >> brian, thank you very much for getting the story on how this all happened. thanks for joining us tonight. and steve clemens, thank you for joining us. >> thanks.

>> thank you. >> cutting the deficit at any price. even the price is too high. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm michael smerconish in for chris matthews. leading off tonight, deficit chicken hawks. we begin this week to find that republicans have gotten what they wanted, indiscriminate cuts in government. what no one is disputing is that they'll kill jobs and slow the recovery all while doing nothing to solve our long-term spending problem. it's not unlike being fat and deciding to cut off your leg to lose weight. at least we now know the one thing the gop stands for, cutting spending, any spending, and protecting the wealthy from tax hikes at any costs.

also, what are we to make of mitt romney's first post-election interview? here are two reactions that come to mind. he hasn't moved on, and he still doesn't get why he lost. plus, would you pay $77 for a box of gauze pads? how about $1.50 for one tylenol tablet? guess what? it's possible that you already have anytime you have gone to the hospital. here is what i want to know. will obama care fix that mess? and who decided that dennis rodman was the ideal ambassador to break the ice with the most isolated country on earth, north korea, and its bizarre leader, kim jong-un? finally, calling luke skywalker and captain kirk, was president obama referring to "star wars" or "star trek" when he criticized republicans last let's begin with republican unity on spending cuts. howard fineman is the editorial director for "the huffington post," and jared bernstein is a

former economic adviser to vice president biden. both are msnbc political analysts. gentlemen, "the new york times" caught on to a trend within the republican party today with their front page headline "gop clings to one thing it agrees on, spending cuts." richard stevenson then wrote, conservative governors are signing onto provisions of what they once derisively dismissed as obama care. prominent senate republicans are taking positions on immigration that would have gotten the party's presidential candidates hooted off the debate stage during last year's primaries. same-sex marriage has gone from being a reliable motivator for the conservative base to gaining broad acceptance. and four months after mr. obama won a second term, the only issue that truly unites republicans is a commitment to shrinking the federal government through spending cuts, low taxes, and less regulation. you can hear that sentiment from >> so far i haven't heard a single senate republican say they'd be willing to raise a dime in taxes to turn off the sequester.

and four months after mr. obama won a second term, the only issue that truly unites republicans is a commitment to shrinking the federal government through spending cuts, low taxes, and less regulation. you can hear that sentiment from >> so far i haven't heard a single senate republican say they'd be willing to raise a dime in taxes to turn off the sequester. >> jared, the gop says that even bad budget cutting is better than no budget cutting. why are they wrong? >> because of the impact of bad budget cutting on the people who take the brunt of it. most of whom don't work for the house or the senate. for example, it's been widely estimated that the economy will grow about half a point more slowly and that we'll lose over >> and mitch mckoenl is right. and i talked to lots of republicans about this. we said not long ago, michael, that actually the tea party had had its moment. their big moment was 2010, and now the tea party has kind of faded as a force. that actually is not true. in this kind of reductionist politics, all republicans are tea party members now because of their focus on taxes and their refusal to deal any longer with that part of the equation. >> and, jared, maybe one of the reasons why effectively it can be a good strategy for the gop is that intuitively some of

their constituents draw a causal connection between government spending being out of control and a sluggish economy. why is that connection faulty?

why is that connection faulty? >> well, it's not only faulty, it's upside down. if you want evidence, just look at europe. i mean, europe has cut government spending at a time when the economy was already weak and growth has slowed. it doesn't mean that you can never cut government spending. it doesn't mean that every dollar is fully efficiently spent. but it certainly does mean that you don't take a whack out of government services so indiscriminately and at a time like this, when the economy is already too weak. let's be clear about this, it's not just the republicans who have signed on to spending cuts. democrats, if you look at the president's plan, he also agrees that there are places to cut spending, including entitlements, by the way. but it's a matter of -- part of this is a matter of timing. you don't hit the economy while it's down. so it's the indiscriminate nature, all of this austerity, which again look to europe if you want to see how that works. >> yesterday on "meet the press"

john boehner told david gregory the republican plan to promote growth. let's watch. >> we've got to find a way through our tax code to promote more economic growth in our country. we can do this by closing loopholes, bringing the rates down for all americans, making the tax code fairer. it will promote more economic -- >> there's no ironclad evidence that lowering marginal tax rates will lead to economic growth. >> oh, yes, there is. >> clinton raised taxes -- >> there's mountains of evidence that if we bring tax rates down, that we will help spur economic growth in our country. >> that hasn't been tried before? >> oh, yeah, ronald reagan 1981. >> and he also raised taxes. >> and it worked very well. >> he raised taxes as well, and it didn't hurt the economy, did it? >> listen, he lowered taxes twice, in 1981 and again out of the 1986 tax reform. when they lowered rates for all americans, we had this boom in economic growth. >> jared bernstein, i need an abacus to follow this sort of thing. this is why you're here.

it sounds to me like the speaker is saying we closed the loopholes in return for lower taxes and lower tax rates. isn't that an offset which provides no net revenue? >> correct. if you do revenue neutral tax reform, that's what he's talking about, there is no deficit or debt reduction there. so right off the bat that's a little screwy if your target is the debt. secondly, there's not mountains of evidence for that. there's not even ant hills of evidence for that. i mean, this is supply side economics, and what we've seen time and again is if you cut the tax rates, especially for those at the top of the income scale, you have less revenue, and they have higher after-tax income. i mean, you couldn't possibly ask for better evidence than we've had of that over the long haul. >> you'd acknowledge we could never just grow our way out of a $16 trillion debt. >> i would. >> okay. howard fineman, who wins, who loses politically as the cuts now begin to play themselves out? >> well, i think the president has the upper hand politically, but i think it's a closer

question than was true during the fiscal cliff. i think in this case not raising taxes, just the mere statement of refusal to raise taxes is overall by itself a pretty popular sort of default position for the american people, so it's a little bit of a closer question. where the republicans lose and where they're going to continue to lose is that they seem to be the uncooperative ones. they're the ones who are refusing to properly negotiate. they're the ones who are taking, you know, a line in the sand position. and in the 1990s it was the republicans who were blamed for a shutdown of government. and this time around it will be the republicans, by a narrow margin perhaps, but the republicans who will again be blamed for the disruptions that the sequester causes. you're going to see lines at the airports. you're going to see furloughs. you're going to see a slow down of economic activity in various places. ultimately it's the republicans'

gamble that those will be slow moving and undramatic and will take a long time to take effect, and they think the american people will say, you know what? cutting $85 billion isn't that bad. that's their bet. >> howard -- >> i think in the end, in the end they will lose that bet because ultimately the effects of sequester will be real. >> and if the "b" roll, to put it in language we understand, to go with this story is of government workers being laid off, politically speaking the gop's calculus is that's not such a bad thing. >> if it's government workers, if it's -- if it's so-called bureaucrats who don't seem to be doing anything who may have valuable work but you can't put it on television who are laid off, that's one thing. it's another thing if there are hour upon hours of lines at -- >> tsa. >> -- at airports or the tsa. if people can't get their questions answered from the irs or from medicare, whatever. there's going to be real world effects. >> jared, go ahead. >> it's also the case that the

vast majority of people who work for defense contractors are private sector employees. so it's not just government workers who are going to be facing job losses here. >> while the cuts are going into effect, the president said today that he still hopes to work with republicans on reducing the deficit. here is what he said. >> we are going to manage it as best we can to try to minimize the impacts on american families, but it's not the right way for us to go about deficit reduction, and so i will continue to seek out partners on the other side of the aisle so we can create the kind of balanced approach of spending cuts, revenues, entitlement reform that everybody knows is the right way to do things. >> and, jared, the right way would have to include, and he made reference to it, medicare and medicaid, true? >> right. true, and that's in his plan. i mean, he says everyone knows, he's leaving out john boehner and mr. mcconnell and paul ryan and eric cantor. look, the gridlock here is fully

a function of republicans' inability to get to yes on new revenues in this deal because the president -- this is probably not widely appreciated, and it's just a few mouse clicks away. the president keeps saying i have this plan. click on his plan, and you will see reductions to benefits in social security. you will see reductions to medicare spending. he's going outside of many democrats' comfort zones. so he is putting entitlements, spending, on the table along with revenue increases and, of course, that's the sticking point. >> jared bernstein, thank you. howard fineman, as always, thank you very much. coming up, mitt romney's first interview since losing the election. he says he was convinced he would win even as late as election day. that's ahead. this is "hardball."

the 2016 speculation continues with jeb bush's interview this morning on the "today" show. bush wouldn't rule out becoming the third member of his family to run for president. >> that's way off into the future. i have a voice i want to share

my beliefs about how the conservative movement and the republican party can regain its footing because we've lost our way. >> bush says he's not ruling anything out, but he's not declaring his candidacy at this point either. we'll be right back.

>> welcome back to "hardball." romney re-emerges. it's been four months since he lost the election, but a wistful mitt romney is still brooding over what went wrong in his failed presidential bid, and comments to chris wallace yesterday on "fox news sunday" shows a candidate and a party that's out of touch with a diverse america. here is romney explaining his loss. >> the weakness that our campaign had, that i had, is we weren't effective at taking my message primarily to the minority voters, to hispanic-americans, african-americans, other minorities. that was a real weakness. we did very well with a majority

of the population but not with minority populations, and that was a failing. that was a real mistake. >> why do you think that was? >> well, i think the obama care attractiveness and feature was something we underestimated, particularly among lower incomes, and we just didn't do as good a job at connecting with that audience as we should have. >> joy reid is managing editor of the grio and an msnbc political analyst, and peter beinart is a columnist for "the daily beast." peter, you wrote and said he still doesn't get it. what doesn't he yet get? >> how can he have been surprised that people without health insurance would want health insurance? he says that, oh, it was the power of incumbency, like this was a patronage, a goodie obama threw out there as opposed to his white voters who only want what's good for the country. it's this way of talking about people essentially as if they're

>> how can he have been surprised that people without health insurance would want health insurance? he says that, oh, it was the power of incumbency, like this was a patronage, a goodie obama threw out there as opposed to his white voters who only want what's good for the country. it's this way of talking about people essentially as if they're the ones who were dependent on the government. go back to that 47%. whereas our people are models of self-reliance, that people instinctively understand means you're talking about them as if somehow they are leeches whereas everyone else has made it on their own. >> for the last two years i have taken it as an article of faith that in his core he's a moderate individual. that the real mitt romney is the man who governed massachusetts. he then tacked to the right so as to survive that republican primary process, and this was the net net. now i'm wondering did i have it reversed. could he at his core be a conservative individual who tacked to the left in order to get elected in massachusetts? what do you make of that theory? >> i agree. i think what we -- the real mitt romney is the guy we saw in that 47% tape. the reason i say that is that was mitt romney not being handled. that was mitt romney not believing he was being taped, not believing he was on television and saying what he really thought. when a guy said to him, how do we get those people, those people, to stop taking all our stuff and being on welfare and not taking care of themselves, that was his answer. 47% of people are just

dependent, just leeches and mooches. i think what mitt romney is fundamentally is is a patrician, and he will do and say whatever he has to do in the moment to get re-elected, and in massachusetts that meant tacking to the middle, but i think the real mitt romney is the guy who, as peter said, thinks that those people, and he thinks they're all black and brown as if that's the only people who receive assistance -- >> he commented on this. he talked about this. as a matter of fact, he admits his 47% comments were harmful but, as he put it, listen to how he explains it as a mistake. >> it was a very unfortunate statement i made. it's not what i meant. i didn't express myself as i wished i would have. you know, when you speak in private, you don't spend as much time thinking about how something could be twisted and distorted and could come out wrong and be used, but, you know, i did, and it was very harmful. what i said is not what i believe. obviously my whole campaign, my whole life, has been devoted to helping people, all the people. i care about all the people. >> maybe i'm splitting hairs. it really wasn't in private.

private is the three of us go to lunch, not that one of us stands up at a fund-raiser. >> yeah. you know, this is -- i think mitt romney in his heart of hearts i'm sure in some place really does want to do what's right for everybody, but what it comes across as is that he really does believe there are two sets of americans. there are the sets of americans -- set of americans who take and the set of americans who give, and it just happens that those divide along essentially racial and class lines. anyone who knows anything about american history and about the way our political economy actually works knows that's absolutely not true. i mean, how did the white south reach economic parity with the rest of america? through the massive infusion of government money through agriculture and military subsidies, for instance. but he seems totally blind to this and blind to the way in which these kind of comments will still be heard by the kind of voters that republicans need to win as fundamentally alienating. >> you began your piece by being complimentary. you said, i forget the word choice, i'll paraphrase, you thought he was a very decent individual at his core. and then moved on and criticized

his remarks. >> well, he does have this foundation which he talked about which is designed to help poor kids. one of the things i always have liked about mitt romney, which is the same thing i like about barack obama, is he really seems to like to be with his wife. he really seems to actually be one of the rare politicians who prefers to be with his own wife and family. he struck me as a grounded guy but also a very detached guy. >> the reason i bring that up is because one of the comments that ann romney made is that she blamed the media, and she blamed the media for not allowing the real narrative of mitt romney to come out, and i blame the romneys and the campaign because i called it on the road in the course of the convention, convention and political malpractice the way that those tremendous testimonials from mormons were not shown in prime time and instead it was clint eastwood and the chair. but respond, joy, to that whole issue of it's the media's fault. >> you're obviously right. i was at the convention when they played this video. i thought if this is getting on tv, this will really help him because it shows him as a human being. when you're the challenger in a

campaign, it's on you to try to define who you are because, of course, the incumbent is spending money defining you the way they want to to the voters. the romney campaign never created a narrative that was this is the real mitt romney because they didn't want to talk about mormonism, they were afraid of alienating the religious right, and they didn't want to talk about his time in massachusetts because they were afraid it would a make him look too liberal. they didn't want to talk about anything other than that narrow set of platitudes and sound bites that were never definitional about him. one quick point, this is a guy who maybe he is decent, but those people who were working in that room, serving food to him and his friends in boca raton, they were invisible to him such that he felt comfortable saying what he said in front of them. i think that tells you something -- >> on this issue on the media. this is ann romney blaming the media for the portrayal of mitt. >> of course, it was partly true, but it was not just the campaign's fault. i believe it was the media's fault as well. is that he was not being given a

fair shake, that people weren't allowed to really see him for who he was. >> all right. what about the media? >> i'm happy to blame the media. >> do you think the media was in the tank for barack obama? >> i think that any time you're running for office, you always think that you're being portrayed unfairly, and, you know, of course on our side we believed there's more bias in favor of the other side. i think that, you know, that's a pretty universal -- universally felt opinion. >> and yet, peter, in that same interview she acknowledges the truthfulness of the politico report that said that both she and tagg romney went to the campaign and said essentially let mitt be mitt. >> right. i mean, i think what's ironic about this is a lot of the problems mitt romney had that joy was talking about were similar to the kind of problems al gore had in 2000 and john kerry had in 2004 which essentially you had a campaign apparatus that would not let the guy talk about who the core of what he was is. the core of who he is is his

mormonism, his deep commitment to his faith, and his belief he was a great governor of massachusetts. when you take those things away, like you said to al gore in 2000, you can't talk about the environment, what you get is someone who is inauthentic. >> i remember that image that was presented by parents of a 14-year-old who died at a very young age of mitt romney coming to his bedside with a legal tablet and preparing for him his last will and testament so that he knew where his skateboard would go. >> right. >> not shown in prime time. if you weren't watching a feed like ours on msnbc, chances are you didn't even see it. that's not the fault of the media. that's whomever put it at 9:00 instead of 10:00 at night. >> i think it's part of the core problem i think with the romney campaign is it was operating out of fear. fear of the base of the republican party, and they did so much of what they did out of terror at what the base would say, whether it was tea partiers or the religious right, that they failed to do basic things you're supposed to do when you're building a challenger's campaign. >> let us acknowledge this, at times in the interview mitt romney came off as humble, especially when he noted his own losing record. >> to a certain degree when you

hear about the rebranding, aren't people saying they want to distance the party from you? >> well, i recognize that as the guy who lost the election, i'm not in a position to tell everybody else how to win, all right? they're not going to listen, and i don't have the credibility to do that anyway. >> what does the republican party need to do to reach out and attract more voters? >> well, first of all, i lost, and so i'm not going to be telling the republican party come listen to me, the guy who lost is going to tell you how to win. >> cpac is not the game as gop, but it's amazing to me, it's telling i guess i should say, that chris christie will not be there and mitt romney will be there. >> because chris christie is exactly the guy who did the kind of things that joy is talking about. it's exactly what bill clinton had to do in 1992. he had to do something, some confrontation with his own party to say, you know what? i am different. mitt romney never did that, and, therefore, he kept the baggage of a very, very unpopular republican brand. >> if, for example, in the 10 for 4 question he would have stood up and said this is insanity. >> that's right, but he defended his answer.

he said i was right to say 10 for 4. of course, he wasn't right. that was exactly the kind of thing that made him noncredible. thank you, peter beinart. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine

you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue.

so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow." first, "snl's" seth meyers and host kevin hart schooled the supreme court on why doing away with section 5 of the voting rights act is just a bad idea. >> really, supreme court, your plan is the voting rights act is outdated. i don't think you get to say what's outdated when you're a small council of old people in robes who decide our laws and can't be fired. that's like guy fieri telling people what's tacky. also, you can't argue that racism isn't is problem anymore just because we have a black president.

really, if it was up to some people in the south, we wouldn't have a black president, we would have separate presidents. >> you know you would. you still got the -- from last time. really? >> really. >> we don't mean to be hard on you mississippi, but you just ratified the amendment abolishing slavery two weeks ago. not only did mississippi wait 150 years after lincoln, they waited six months after "lincoln" the movie. i mean really. >> he's not kidding about mississippi and ratifying the 13th amendment. their first attempt to do it was in 1995. still pretty late. but a paperwork snafu meant the whole thing never went through. next, the mark sanford saga gets a little weirder. this is, of course, the mark sanford who is trying to make a political comeback after that bizarre incident during his stint as governor of south carolina. some thought he was off hiking the appalachian trail, but he was really in argentina having an extramarital affair. now he's running for congress, and according to "new york magazine" he had a proposition

for his ex-wife, jenny sanford, who helped with his previous campaign. quote, since you're not running, i want to know if you'll run my campaign, he said. we could put the team back together. jenny told him in so many words that wasn't going to happen. mark made one last appeal, quote, i could pay you this time, he said. can't say it's a huge surprise that he took a pass, but the request -- that she took a pass, but the request itself is a little jaw-dropping. next, what do americans really think of this massive overhaul of spending cuts that took effect on friday? gallup put the responses to that question in a word cloud. here goes. seems to be a tossup between good and disaster. people had free rein on their responses, so some of the more emotional responses include god help us and here we go again. finally, one of the biggest takeaways from president obama's news conference on friday, at least on twitter, was this one line. >> i'm presenting a fair deal.

the fact that they don't take it means that i should somehow, you know, do a jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what's right. >> enter confused sci-fi fans. was the president talking about "star wars" and the jedi mind trick or "star trek" and the vulcan mind meld? chances are he just plain messed up. but lucas film, the company that brought us "star wars," weighed in. a spokesperson said, quote, president obama might have created a mash up of "star wars" friends at lucas film and "star trek." he also might be a lot more savvy with his knowledge of "star wars" than anyone is giving m credit for. in some of the "star wars" spinoff books, there is a force meld. all the president's friend at lucas film would love to believe his expertise in "star wars" knowledge runs deep. probably a long shot, but there is no question the president has

friends at lucas film. george lucas donated to both his presidential campaigns. up next, why do health costs in this country continue to soar, and what's obama care going to do about it? you're watching "hardball,"

welcome back to "hardball." remember the outrage over the department of defense's $435 hammer or business executive dennis kozlowski's $6,000 shower curtain? well, be prepared to be outraged again, but this time you can be directly affected. it's medical costs that are out of control. steven brill wrote the longest ever cover story for "time" magazine where he spent seven months knee deep in eight cases of people who got astronomical medical bills. he went through them line by line, and his findings are astounding. here are some of the highlights. $77 for a box of gauze pads, $18 for a single diabetes test strip. you can buy a box of 50 on amazon for $28. and the whopper of them all, a 10,000% markup on simple tylenol tablets.

the hospital charged $1.50 per tablet. you can buy a bottle of 100 for $1.49. the outrage is clear. the solution isn't. joining me, steven brill, who wrote the special report for "time" magazine called "bitter pill: why medical bills are killing us ,"and neera tanden who worked on the affordable care act as senior advisor for health reform at hhs. steven, you say our priorities are mistaken. we have been looking at who will pay instead of how much is to be paid. why? why have we gotten this out of whack? >> all the people who are getting the money that i found in the bills have an interest in having the debate be different. i should also add that while, you know, the $77 box of gauze pads is interesting, what really costs money is, you know, the $13,000 dose of a cancer drug that the hospital buys for $3,000 and the drugmaker makes for $200. that is the stuff that is, you know, driving the country

bankrupt and is driving millions of families bankrupt every year. >> a part of the reason why there's not more outrage is because an individual like myself, who is fortunate in having health insurance, i really only want to know one thing, is it covered? unlike my cable bill which comes into my house and i scrutinize every line of it. medical bill, they're paying it, i don't worry about it? >> there's a large percentage of americans who do have to pay directly, but even in your case, your insurance company might negotiate a 40% or 50% or even 60% discount off the box of gauze pads or off of the $13,000 wonder drug, but that still is an exorbitant profit for the hospital, the drugmaker, the ct scan equipment maker, and everybody involved. so this affects everybody. >> one of the things, neera, that i learned from steven brill and his piece at "time" magazine is the affordable care act, because of the focus on who pays, is going to leave unaddressed many of the issues that he's describing.

can you respond to that issue? >> well, look, i think that there are solutions in the affordable care act and that they should be strengthened. one of the challenging is we don't have enough competition. there's not competitive bidding. one of the things is that people can charge exorbitant prices, and there's no competition to get a lower price. it's something that this really amazing article points out, and i think that is -- there are a number of steps -- it doesn't matter who is paying for things and how they're paid for. some of the ideas around bundling and ensuring that we're paying for episodes of care will help illustrate why -- it will help create incentives to lower the cost of every individual item, every particular service. so there are steps within the affordable care act that get at why prices are so high. we should take additional steps, and they're not sufficient. we should do more. >> steven, what do we need to

do? >> but it's not that we haven't done anything. >> well, i think the fair thing, with all due respect to neera and her work, the fair thing is to say they tried, but the reason obama care passed was it didn't do anything to cut into the profits of the drug companies, of the hospitals, the exorbitant profits that your local nonprofit hospital makes even though we know it's a nonprofit. the affordable care act did nothing to cut the profits of everybody involved. in fact, if anything, it's going to add to the profits because it's going to put more people into health care which is a good thing. they're going to have insurance, but the taxpayers are going to subsidize that. >> what i learned from you is nonprofit really means opportunity to expand. >> nonprofit means you don't pay taxes, and you don't have to give the money to shareholders. instead, you can distribute it

to the nondoctor executives at the hospital in millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses. >> another -- you said another cost driver is nonprofit hospitals, they're making big profits, and the article points this out. quote, in hundreds of small and midsized cities across the country, the american health care market has transformed tax exempt nonprofit hospitals into the town's most profitable businesses and largest employers, often presided over by the region's most richly compensated executives. for example, m.d. anderson cancer center at the university of texas, a nonprofit, had a 26% operating profit in 2010. the president of the cancer center was paid $1.8 million last year. that's three times what the president of the university made. neera, how do we address that situation, where so much of the cost is going into these so-called nonprofit hospitals? >> look, i think that, you know, there's been bipartisan support for addressing nonprofit hospitals and saying whether they should really be considered for-profit hospitals, and that's an excellent point raised by this, but i think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that one of the reasons why there is this

shell game in the american health care system is because there are so many people who are uninsured in our country, and hospitals are constantly trying to shift around costs, and we don't have a system by which it's transparent what they're charging. there are some steps in the affordable care act to have transparency so you have those steps. but that's a problem with the fact that we have so many people uninsured, and when we get, you know, more people insured in the system, there won't be this constant shell game, and there won't be an excuse for this constant shell game. >> steven, one of the things you bring out, and you made reference to this, is the health care and pharmaceutical industry, they pay an army of lobbyists to protect their business. since 1998, this is stunning, they spent $5.36 billion on lobbying. by comparison, the defense industry and oil and gas industries each paid their lobbyists about a quarter of that. and in your piece you maintain that that's one of the reasons why this pricing has been

protected. >> that's why obama care is the way it is, and that's why it doesn't address the people -- the interests that are making all this money. i mean, you know, it's a lot of reporting, it's a long article, look at the salary of the ceos of the drug company, look at their compensation, look at the hospital's compensation. everybody along that supply chain except for the physicians is making out like a bandit >> it's an eye-opener. ♪

i'd like to thank eating right, whole grain, multigrain cheerios! mom, are those my jeans? [ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't. multigrain cheerios we've heard a lot about how the republicans lost the latino vote in last year's election. and they're losing another minority group, asian-americans. a new gallup poll finds that by a 2 to 1 margin, asian-american voters identify with the democrats. last year president obama won the asian vote by more than 40 points. we'll be right back.

we're back. you would think the first american to meet north korea's dictator, kim jong-un, would be secretary of state john kerry or even president obama. but, no, former basketball star dennis rodman beat them to the punch. rodman, known as the worm, wiggled his way back into the spotlight after pictures surfaced of him hanging with the tyrant while visiting pyongyang to film a basketball documentary. rodman calls kim, quote, an awesome guy and a friend. even more bizarre was that the hall of famer revealed to abc's george stephanopoulos that kim gave him a message for president obama. listen. >> i sat with him for two days, and at one point he asked me to give obama something to say and do one thing. he wants obama to do one thing. call him. >> he wants a call from president obama? >> that's right. he told me that.

he said, if you can, dennis, i don't want to do war. he loves basketball. obama loves basketball. let's start there. let's start there. >> do you expect the obama administration to use rodman's basketball diplomacy anytime soon but et's talk about it. chris cillizza is an msnbc political analyst. stephen smith is an espn commentator. >> do you think he's been briefed by the cia or that he will, and if not, should he? >> well, number one, the answer to had he been briefed, i can feel pretty confident in saying no. will he be debriefed? i mean who knows. it's dennis rodman. as someone who has been a fan of basketball for a long time, he's sort of been the most unpredictable of unpredictable folks operating on the national stage. he hadn't been operating on the national stage, frankly, until very recently.

i mean, this story, if a week ago i told you that dennis rodman would go to north korea and be the basketball diplomat be on this week with george stephanopoulos, there is no chance you would believe me. all that said, i'd love to have that cody hat on. >> meadow lark lemon said to be headed for hugo chavez at some point soon. what is the downside? we love to deride this, show the video and so forth. steven, what is the downside if there is one to all this? >> there is no downside outside of the sadness that gets attached to dennis rodman, because you realize how pathetic he can be. the reality of the situation is he came over incredibly misinformed, clearly insensitive to the plight of a lot of north koreans over there in prison. some of the heinous things we've heard. we're talking about the state department classifying north korea as arguably the biggest violators of human rights. and here you are. you have a former basketball player associated with the national basketball association, a hall of famer inducted in 2011

that is sitting on national television across from george george and calling this individual his friend. clearly ignorant to the history of what has taken place, the fact that diplomatic relations obviously is virtually nonexistent between north korea and the united states of america. all of those things factor into the equation, point to a flagrant and alarming level of ignorance that none of us can apologize for or aummarily dismiss other than it's rodman and he is a bit different. clearly he is not in tune with what is going on in this world in terms of that. and we understand it, and we got to take it for what it is. but i don't think the white house nor anybody in the state department nor anybody in the united states government would feel the need to brief dennis rodman on anything pertaining to this individual. i don't think it's necessary. >> chris, george stephanopoulos continued to press rodman about what stephen a. was just talking about, the human rights violations. >> sure. >> the worm stuck by his new friend. here is what he had to say. >> see a great guy. he is just a great guy.

if you sit down and talk to him. perception is perceiving how things are. >> a great guy who puts 200,000 people in prison camps? >> well, you know, guess what? we do the same thing here, which have prison camps here in the united states? >> we don't have prison camp. this is all politics, right? >> but it sounds like you're apologizing for him? >> no, i'm not apologizing for him. i think he is a good guy to me. he's my friend. >> and chris, he is the only american who has met with this guy. i think you got to bring him in and find out what you can learn. >> look, i think stephen a. makes a really good point. it's easy and i've done it on my blog to say this is an incredible story and i can't believe this happened. but what is clear here is that dennis rodman is drastically out of his depth when it comes to foreign policy and what north korea has or hasn't done. the justification of that, well, this is politics. there is a big, big difference between north korea is doing to its citizenry and politics.

you know, look, i guess dennis rodman has a right to whatever friends he wants. but i do think broadly you have to realize if you're a public figure, you go and do things like, this they have an impact. the white house has come out and said this is not the sort of thing we want to be doing. >> he looks earnest. i feel sorry for dennis rodman. thank you, stephen. >> i'm not sure whether he is earnest, but that doesn't mean the impact of hi actions don't have negative consequences. >> thank you thank you stephen a. we'll be right after this. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics let my me p in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien.

allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

let my me finish tonight with this. yesterday the "washington post" om budsman patrick paxton signed off. in his final column, paxton said the number one topic of complaint to him while ombudsman had been the posts online comments system. readers often say they like the idea of online comments, but they abhor the hatefulness, juvenile name-calling, racism, and ideological warfare that are constant features of the post's commenting stream. as an example, he cited ugly comments on a recent story about a high school football coach who criticized the first lady's derriere. well, yesterday i went to see what he was talking about. there were 5,000 comments posted to that story when i looked. and the very first of them posted by someone who had only called themselves d.steebs said this -- >> i also believe michelle obama has a fat butt. i also don't like what queers do